Search results for 'tag:Dialects tag:Constructions' matching tags 'Dialects' and 'Constructions'

Re: was or were

CalifJim — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:16:00 GMT

Huevos
But isn't this just one of the many idiosyncrasies of Standard English (spoken by less than 12% of native speakers worldwide). Is there any other English dialect that this exists in?

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 friends freely vacilates between the was and the were forms in that construction.

I'm not sure what Standard English is supposed to be, or how the statistics are gathered that include that 12% estimate, so I can't speak to that. In any case, I don't think it is very often that people speak of Standard English as a dialect, and I don't know enough about the distribution of dialects or varieties of English worldwide to answer your final question. Hopefully someone who knows more about it will respond.

Re: were late / would be late

MrPedantic — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:59:39 GMT

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 Y" (or "had X a done..."). It tends not to appear in published texts, except in dialogue (cf. the example in The Great Gatsby â "If we'd of raised the blinds, we'd of seen daylight", where "of" = "have").

"If X would have done Y" is also moderately common in spoken BrE, especially in northern dialects, but seems to have a sense of "if X had been willing to do Y". Again, you tend not to find it in published texts.

(I note that MS Word objects to "If I'd've", but not "If I had have". Curious.)

MrP

Re: were late / would be late

Kooyeen — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:09:09 GMT

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 you the truth: I've always thought it was non-standard, same register as "ain't". Low register, only common in certain dialects. I don't remember a single grammar book saying it was acceptable. In fact, I only remember people criticizing it. Here are a few comments like the ones I've always heard:

Also in the midwest, I often heard, "If I would have . . . ., I would have . . . . ." Drove me nutz! (Avangi)
http://www.englishforums.com/English/CondtitionalTense/zndwv/post.htm#482524

The construction, actually any construction with 'would' in a hypothetical if-clause, is considered non-standard. (Jim)
http://www.englishforums.com/English/HadHaveHad/chrcq/post.htm#201527

To me, it evokes comical people from remote mountain regions or from city slums who are uneducated and have some accent that most listeners dislike. But maybe research would reveal it to enjoy a wider demographic distribution. To my ear, it's about as obtrusively wrong and amusing as 'them' for 'those'. It's definitely not acceptable for standard written usage. On the other hand, it's not the most awful mistake one can make. (Native from San Diego)
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=97201#3

Would have for had - In spoken English, there is a growing tendency to use would have in place of the subjunctive had in contrary-to-fact clauses, such as If she would have (instead of if she had) only listened to me, this would never have happened. But this usage is still widely considered an error in writing. Only 14 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it in the previously cited sentence, and a similar amountâbut 16 percentâaccepts it in the sentence I wish you would have told me about this sooner. (A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English)
http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/061.html

On the other hand, some people seem to use it all the time, regardless of region or cultural influences, and so it's a common feature of informal English to them. One example:

Hmmm...never thought of that construction as a mountain dialect but normal everyday American! I never knew it was incorrect! (Native from the Midwest)
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=97201#5

That's why I was so surprised, considering you are a writer and knowing you use "correct" English most of the time. This can only mean two things now... I have to choose between:
1) I start to use it as well, feeling ashamed of not knowing is was so common.
2) I don't start to use it, and I start to tease you because it's not like you to speak bad English.

LOL, just kidding. Seriously, I don't know what to say. I think I'll consider the fact that people are actually more tolerant of it than I thought, so it's not that bad. But do you also use it in your writing? You know, just because I don't like prescriptive grammar, doesn't mean I don't want to know about it. In fact, prescriptive grammar is part of descriptive grammar.
I'll appreciate any opinions on this. Thanks.

Re: Verb Recommend+Infinitive forms

Yankee — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 12:47:35 GMT

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 told/advised him to lose weight. (I would not use recommend in this construction, but I suppose some would.)

Re: Beginning to define the difference.

Kooyeen — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:19:58 GMT

MrPedantic wrote:

[1] i a. It is clear whom they had in mind. b. Itâs 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 (what is standard English?), with [ a ] somewhat formal (formal standard English?), and [ b ] neutral (who finds it neutral?) or slightly informal (who finds it informal?). There is no difference in grammaticality (according to what grammar?). But in [ ii ], the [ a ] version is standard (again, what is it?), the [ b ] version non-standard (why? what does this mean?); we use the â!â 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 quotation. What is standard English? I said that it doesn't exist because I think it is impossible to define exactly.
Let's take a look at Milky's post, where "standard English" was defined by CGEL. Well, it seems to me that they want to call "standard" the kind of English used in formal situations, doesn't it seem so? Fine, but what is the reason why formal English must always be the standard one for everyone and everywhere?
Descriptive grammar accepts formal English and prescriptive grammar, but it also goes on describing other different usages, and tells you when and where certain structures are found and common.

Take "y'all". Prescriptive grammar says it's non-standard. Why? Just because it's not part of what they defined as standard, which is some kind of formal English.
Descriptive grammar can't say it's non-standard, because the standard varies according to the situation, so defining only one standard would be misleading. It might tell you that "y'all" is not found in formal writing, but it is found in certain kinds of informal writing (comic books, some novels, advertisements, etc.). And it might tell you that it is very common in informal speech in some southern regions. So, would it be fair to tell that it is non-standard? After all, you could even say that it is standard in informal southern speech.

Re: Beginning to define the difference.

milky — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:45:48 GMT

MrPedantic wrote:

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

http://www.cambridge.org/assets/linguistics/cgel/chap1.pdf

[1] i a. It is clear whom they had in mind. b. Itâs 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 â!â 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."

Re: Beginning to define the difference.

MrPedantic — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:28:06 GMT

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

http://www.cambridge.org/assets/linguistics/cgel/chap1.pdf

[1] i a. It is clear whom they had in mind. b. Itâs 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 â!â symbol to mark a construction or form as ungrammatical in Standard English but grammatical in a non-standard dialect.

MrP

Re: Beginning to define the difference.

MrPedantic — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:37:46 GMT

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. Itâs clear who they had in mind.

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

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

MrP

Re: Beginning to define the difference.

MrPedantic — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 22:35:25 GMT

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:

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

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

MrP

Re: Swing low, sweet chariot

MrPedantic — Sun, 06 May 2007 00:20:48 GMT

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 googles: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22for+to+go%22+malory&meta= )

This suggests that it was not non-standard originally; but by the 19th century, it tended to appear only in poetic usage, old songs, and non-standard dialects, as in this example from Gaskell's Sylvia's Lovers:

1. 'It were no illness,Kester began. 'T' little un had gone for a walk wi' Jeremiah Foster, an' he were drawn for to go round t' edge o' t' cliff, wheere they's makin' t' new walk reet o'er t' sea.'

(That doesn't necessarily exclude its appearance in high-register texts; in context, it might add an "archaic" air.)

It's probably true to say that the cause of its obsolescence was its redundancy, as you suggested.

Have a good Sunday,

MrP