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

Re: What makes English so difficult to learn?

Anonymous — Fri, 23 May 2008 22:29:13 GMT

I'm a native English (American) speaker, and I have heard that English is easy to learn at a basic level. However, becoming fluent or speaking like a native speaker is difficult because, frankly, the language makes little sense even to those of us for whom it's a first language. Luckily for anyone out there who thinks their English is not good, your meaning is usually understood even if your grammar is imperfect, and no one really cares. In fact, although I have do know proper grammar, in most informal situations I intentionally use a more relaxed, even sometimes incorrect, dialect because it sounds far too formal to speak so perfectly to one's friends.

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: who or whom

MrPedantic — Sat, 05 May 2007 22:19:14 GMT

Hello Diamond,

"Whom" is always correct; "who" would be considered "incorrect" by some, but would probably be used by most BrE speakers. (I'm not sure which would be more common in other dialects.)

Cf. "I suspect him of supporting the other side"; thus "He is the person whom I suspect of supporting the other side".

Have a good evening,

MrP

Re: Changing accent when you move to somewhere else

Marvin A. — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:50:53 GMT

Some people will even get a sort of neutral accent that has all of the unusual parts removed. The Western US accent was actually formed like that, because speakers from the North, Midlands, and South, all moved to the West, and their accents intermingled and the Western accent was sort of a neutral spot between them. It still is--the Northern US is going through a vowel shift that shifts the vowels in practically opposite directions as the Southern vowel shift. The Western accent for the most part has kept the vowels neutral, but fairly recently has developed its own characteristic system--the low back vowel merger, fronting of the back vowels, and California has developed a vowel shift that is spreading to other areas as well.

Some people are able to code-switch between accents/dialects. Everyone codes switches to a certain extent, but the most extreme example is African-American Vernacular English. People of the African-American cultural group often know two different dialects, and often will not speak pure African-American Vernacular English (which sounds very similar to a Southern accent), or pure General American, but will rather speak with an accent/dialect somewhere in between the two based on the situation: the formality of the situation, as well as to whom they are speaking. So, that is why even when they move to the North or the West, they still can speak in their original Southern-sounding dialect, or code-switch to a more neutral sounding accent. Often they do not pick up the local accent at all, because they identify with their cultural group, rather than region.

Some accents and dialects have nothing to do with region. There are cultural accents: not only is there AAVE, but also Spanish influenced dialects of American English. There are class accents: although much less so in North America than in, say the UK, but they still exist. For example, Middle class people often use prestige forms more often than working class, lower class, and even upper or upper-middle class people. There is also covert prestige: someone that works with working class people that have a distinctive way of speaking may modify his accent to fit in with the group that he is with.

Small children will speak with the accent of their peers, and will assimilate into the new accent more readily than adults and older children. People will often revert to their *original* accent when they are angry or emotionally distressed, as it is usually the accent that has the most meaning for them.

So, there are numerous factors.

Re: lower-class accent

J Lewis — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 12:10:00 GMT

Mjcbrown wrote:

Unlike as in Germany, regional accents have been retained by the working classes and now are still distinctive of the working class and as such bear a "working class" stigma.

Presumably this means "retained only by the working classes", otherwise it could be interpreted as meaning there are no regional accents in Germany. I suppose the correct interpretation is that everybody speaks with a regional accent. This is true in Italy too. However, also in Italy the more "cultured" classes speak with a less strong accent, which means a mix between the local accent and some national standard (of course in Italy there are not only regional accents but well-defined dialects - differences in vocabulary, also some grammatical differences - which in England have largely disappeared).

By the way, I dislike the term RP, "received pronunciation". Received by whom, from whom, on what occasion? And I've also forgotten the meaning of the U in URP. Can someone enlighten me?

Another point: in the South of England RP is in decline and is being replaced by "estuary", a kind of diluted cockney. You'll find bank managers speaking this way nowadays. Estuary is probably the accent of the future.

Re: What is the opposite of Sin?

Anonymous — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 07:11:32 GMT

The Antonym of Sin

In order to arrive at a suitable antonym for the word âsinâ, one must understand the word as it is correctly used in the English language. This explanation will address the meaning of sin and its antonym in an attempt to assist in gaining a more thorough understanding.

As a verb, sin is the act of missing the mark, falling short, or transgressing the law. As a noun, sin is the state of being off the mark, fallen, or out of accordance with the law. The opposite act of sin is reaching the mark and acting in accordance with the law. For clarity, one must know what the intended mark is, what is being fallen short of, and what law is being transgressed by sin. Another simple definition of sin is estrangement from God. In this case, the mark is what God intends one to achieve. Sin is falling short, or going against the law of God.

A single word meaning the opposite of sin may be used in noun form or as a verb to denote the opposite state or act of sin. The most specific antonym of sin is the noun godliness. As a verb, obey is probably the most accurate antonym of sin, but this word used by itself lacks association with anything specific, as one could âobey the law of sinâ. A single word to denote the act of keeping the law of God is hard to find. Examples of these antonyms in sentence form may be, âI would rather live in godliness than die in sinâ, or âI strive not to sin, but to obey God.â Notice the noun use of godliness is more descriptive, but the verb use of obey relies on the noun âGodâ to convey its full meaning.

One could attempt to remove the word âGodâ from the second example, but the meaning of sin and its antonym would become vague. Likewise, nouns such as âobedienceâ are not specific enough to convey full meaning. Even morality and virtue can be viewed as being relevant terms, albeit only by some. For a more complete understanding of sin and its antonym one must address the subject of good and evil. For an accurate understanding of good and evil, one must acknowledge the existence of an absolute point of reference in terms of morality. Otherwise, the entire concept of good and evil would be only relative and sin or its antonym would be ultimately meaningless.

God, in absolute terms, is the self-existent one, or the âI am that I amâ. The Hebrew word for the self-existent one is YHWH, referred to as the name of God. Some ways people pronounce this name are Yahweh or Yahavah, but the meaning is what is significant. A shorter version of the name is Yah. In some dialects the âYâ is pronounced as a âJâ sound, and âWâ as a âVâ sound and various vowels are inserted, such as in Jehovah, or Jah. Regardless of the word itself or name used, the existence of God is not dependent on any other. âGodâ, as the word is being used in this context, refers to the one that self-exists, or is absolute.

Godliness is the condition of obedience to God, or to be acting, speaking and thinking in accordance with God. Only God, as the absolute point of reference can determine what is good and what is evil. God is good, and goodness is that which is of God. Evil is that which opposes God, or that which is not in accordance with God. Sin puts one out of harmony with God. It is the act of going against God and finally puts one out of existence. Obedience keeps one in harmony with God and therefore in existence with God. It is actually simpler to consider that sin is the antonym of godliness rather than godliness being the antonym of sin.

In light of this explanation, the biblical statements that âall have sinned and fall short of the glory of Godâ, and âsin, when it is finished brings forth deathâ, make perfect sense. The Genesis account shows that humanity is in a fallen state, which puts the world in the deadly state of disharmony with God. Speaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, man is told by God, âIn the day you eat of it, you shall surely die.â Naturally, mankind sins and their immediate reaction is to hide from God, in shame, attempting to cover themselves with fig leaves. The account reveals mankindâs inadequacy to remedy his own problem, so it continues to tell how God made coats of skin from animals to cover them. Someone had to die, and in this case the sacrifice was an animal. But mankind was still not in total harmony with God, they were simply covered for the time.

The only way one can be brought back into harmony with God or reconciled to God and made sinless is to be forgiven and made whole again, ultimately to be at one with God.

The self-existent one also has expression self. Oneâs expression can be called oneâs âwordâ. In Greek, the word âlogosâ signifies expression or representation as a logo represents a company in modern usage. There is some very good news that the word of God has become manifest in human form, and is referred to as the âsonâ of God, since he came as a man from God and lived as the expression of God, representing God to mankind. He appeared to reveal attributes of God, such as character, and to make manifest the will of God, as a light to the world. He remained in obedience to God throughout his life and did not sin. Therefore, there would have been no consequence of death resulting from any of his actions. The self-existent one whose name is called YHWH was his father. And it was YHWHâs will to sacrifice his own son so that mankind could be reconciled to him, the only God, and saved from the death that was the consequence of sin.

âYahshuaâ in Hebrew essentially means âYHWH savesâ. Although some of the specifics are debatable, in English, Yahshua is pronounced Jesus. The man who came as the word of God in the flesh was also given by God as the perfect and complete sacrifice by which the sins of mankind would not merely be covered, but entirely removed, thus allowing full forgiveness, reconciliation, restoration, salvation, wholeness, harmony and being made at one with the self-existent God by whom all life is given.

But there is more good news. Not only was the son of God given as a sacrifice for sin, but he was brought back to life after being dead and buried for 3 days, then he ascended into heaven where he is currently with God, YHWH, his Father and serving as the mediator between God and mankind. Everything God says is true, and since Yahshua was and is the living word of God, his words are true. He promised to return to this Earth and the kingdom of God would be established over the entire world. There is a lot more to the good news, but his message was and is to repent, which means to turn away from sin, and believe in the good news, because the kingdom of God is at hand.

As previously mentioned, sin is the antonym of godliness, which puts one out of synch with God, or separates one from God and ultimately life. Therefore, the ultimate antonym of sin is not only in keeping with the law of God, but will eradicate sin and put one who has sinned in harmony with God and give eternal life. The ultimate antonym of sin is the expression of God through his son who was sacrificed for that purpose and resurrected from the dead to save those who believe and live according to this good news. In his own words he stated that eternal life is to know the only true God and his son, Yahshua the Messiah, whom God sent.