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

Re: ain't

Kooyeen — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:47:27 GMT

I think I'd agree with GG... I don't think that "ain't" in place of "do not" or "does not" is what you are likely to hear in most American dialects. These are the most common usages, as far as I know:
I ain't seen it. (have/has not, auxiliary)
I ain't trying to help you. (is/are not)
I ain't got nothing to do. (ain't got = possessive)

EDIT: ah, and I think I usually see it used with a double negative.

Re: correct sentence??

Ruslana — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 10:29:06 GMT

From answers.com:

Speakers of some vernacular American dialects, particularly in the South, may use the possessive reflexive form hisself instead of himself (as in He cut hisself shaving) and theirselves or theirself for themselves (as in They found theirselves alone). These forms reflect the tendency of speakers of vernacular dialects to regularize irregular patterns found in the corresponding standard variety. In Standard English, the pattern of reflexive pronoun forms shows slightly irregular patterning; all forms but two are composed of the possessive form of the pronoun and âself or âselves, as in myself or ourselves. The exceptions are himself and themselves, which are formed by attaching the suffix âself/âselves to the object forms of he and they rather than their possessive forms. Speakers who use hisself and theirselves are smoothing out the pattern's inconsistencies by applying the same rule to all forms in the set. â¢ A further regularization is the use of âself regardless of number, yielding the forms ourself and theirself. Using a singular form in a plural context may seem imprecise, but the plural meaning of ourself and theirself is made clear by the presence of the plural forms ourâ and theirâ. Hisself and theirselves have origins in British English and are still prevalent today in vernacular speech in England.

I'm for the Standard English.

Re: contraction

Likeguslee — Sat, 15 Jul 2006 06:19:31 GMT

b is correct. He isn't a good boy

Here are the rules for contractions:

Apostrophes with Verb Contractions

Apostrophes generally show missing letters in contractions. In most formal writing such contractions should be avoided.

The most common contractions involve verbs in five situations.

1. Verbs with not contracted, or shortened.

Examples: aren't don't isn't wasn't can't weren't weren't wouldn't doesn't hasn't haven't couldn't

Note: The word won't is a contraction of will not--in older dialects will was often spelled with an o. The word shan't for shall not is seldom used in the United States. The word ain't is considered nonstandard.

2. Pronouns with will.

Examples: I'll you'll he'll she'll they'll

Note: In conversation the word will is often slurred and may show up in dialogue as 'll after most nouns, e.g., "John'll come home soon."

3. Pronouns and nouns with the verb to be.

Examples: I'm you're who's (i.e., who is) he's she's it's we're they're

Note: In conversation the word is is often contracted with nouns, e.g. "Martha's here."

Please note four confusing contractions:

who's it's you're they're

Remember, the apostrophe indicates that letters have been left out.

who's = who is or who has you're = you are it's = it is or it has they're = they are

The possessive of who is whose.

Correct: Who's coming with me? (Contraction)

Correct: Whose book is this? (Possessive)

4. Pronouns with the verb to have.

Examples: I've he's you've we've they've

(Note that the 's could stand for is or has.)

Note: Sometimes the word have is slurred, especially after verbs like would, could, and should. In dialogue this can be shown as 've, but never as of.

Incorrect: We would of like to have gone.

Correct: We would've liked to have gone.

(To show contraction in speaking)

Correct: We would have liked to have gone.

(In more formal writing)

5. Pronouns with would or had contracted.

Examples: I'd he'd she'd you'd we'd they'd

I'd better go.

(I had better go.)

He'd want to go.

(He would want to go.)

In everyday conversation the word would is often slurred and may be shown as 'd following a noun in dialogue, e.g. "John'd be upset if he found out."

Re: genitive

paco2004 — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 20:56:19 GMT

Hi, Clive

I don't know that use of "we" necessarily means the king and the country were taken as the same entity. The OED, a mere dictionary for a British dialect of your language, quotes "We, Dermot, prince of Leynester (1425)" as the oldest use of "we" of that usage. The OED says the "we" was commonly followed by a personal title or name. Anyway, even if what you told is true, I am wondering if it could be an evidence to support the opinion "England's King" is a natural expression. The OED is saying in its entry of "of" about the issue on England's King and the King of England as follows:

"OF" XIV. In the sense belonging or pertaining to; expressing possession and its converse: "the owner of the house", "the house of the owner".

Formerly expressed by the genitive, and still to some extent by the possessive case (with transposition of order). The use of of began in Old English with senses 47, 48, expressing origin. After the Norman Conquest the example of the French "de", which had taken the place of the L. genitive, caused the gradual extension of "of" to all uses in which Old English had the genitive; the purely possessive sense was the last to be so affected, and it is that in which the genitive or "possessive" case is still chiefly used. Thus, we say the King's English, in preference to the English of the King; but the King of England in preference to England's King, which is not natural or ordinary prose English.

You are speaking the American Language which is spoken in a country where Martin Luther King was born, and so I don't say "England's King" is completely wrong as far as you concerned.

Best wishes,

paco

Re: Possessive before a gerund.

paco2004 — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 19:48:15 GMT

OED

The gerund still retains one feature of the verbal noun, namely, that of admitting of a preceding possessive case or possessive pronoun, as in "after John's behaving so strangely", "upon my readily granting it". In the literary language this construction is regularly retained with a pronoun, and very generally with a single personal substantive; but, with names of things, and phraseological or involved denominations, the sign of the possessive began to be dropped already by 1600. "By each at once her choppy finger laying upon her skinny lips" [Shakespeare ]. No other treatment is now possible in such constructions as "in default of one or other being accepted", "on the general and his staff appearing", "in the event of your expectations not being at once realized", "in consequence of much snow having fallen".

And, in current spoken English, the 's is commonly omitted with all nouns. "I insist upon Miss Sharp appearing" [Thackeray: Vanity Fair xi. 348], where "Miss Sharp's'" would now sound pedantic or archaic. Even a pronoun standing before the gerund is put in the objective, in dialect speech, and, when the pronoun is emphatic, this is common in ordinary colloquial English. "Papa did not care about them learning" [Thackeray ]. "But who ever heard of them eating an owl?" []. "That is no excuse for him beating you"[Reade (1863)]. So "What is the use of me speaking?".

In such constructions the objective noun or pronoun seems to stand in simple apposition to the gerund, the two forming a kind of combined object of the preposition, reminding us of the Greek infinitive with an accusative after a preposition as in "Âµet? t? pa?ad????a? t?? ???????" (=after John being delivered up). But in Eng. there has probably been analogical influence from the construction of the present participles. Cf., for instance, "John was digging potatoes" -> "Who saw John digging potatoes?", and "Who ever heard of John (= John's) digging potatoes?".

Re: Dangling

paco2004 — Sun, 05 Dec 2004 09:08:54 GMT

Hello MrP

History of English Gerunds (quoted from OED)

The most notable development of the verbal nouns in form of -ing is its use as a gerund, i.e. a substantive with certain verbal functions, particularly those of being qualified by an adverb instead of an adjective, and of governing an object like a verb: e.g. the habit of speaking loosely (= loose speaking); he has hopes of coming back speedily (= a speedy return); he practises writing (= the writing of)leading articles; engaged in building himself a house (= the building of a house for himself); after having written a letter (= the completion of the writing of a letter).

This gerundial use is peculiar to English, of which it is a characteristic and most important feature; it was unknown to OE. and early ME. The first traces of it as yet pointed out (see R. Blume Ursprung und Entwickelung des Gerundiums im Englischen, Bremen 1880) occur c1340 in the Ayenbite of Inwit and in the writings of Richard Rolle of Hampole, in the separation of the adverbial particles in down-coming, down-falling, in-going, etc., and the placing of it after the verbal nouns, coming down, falling down, going in, as in the finite verb, come down, fall down, go in. This was soon extended to adverbs and adverbial phrases generally, so that it became established that any verbal noun could, like the verb to which it belonged, take an adverbial qualification. In other respects the verbal noun at first retained its noun construction, e.g. c1350 Hampole Prose Tr. (E.E.T.S.) 11âall manere of withd-raweynge of oÃ¾er men thynges wrang-wysely agaynes Ã¾aire wyll Ã¾at aghte itâ.

A generation later, the verbal noun is found with a verbal regimen, thus 1377 Langland P. Pl. B. xiv. 186 âConfessioun and knowlechyng and crauyng Ã¾y mercy shulde amende vsâ; Ibid. xix. 72 âwith-outen mercy askyngeâ. This gerundial construction is very frequent in Wyclif's Bible (1382); and it is significant that he regularly uses it in translating the Latin gerund, while he retains the original substantival construction in rendering a Latin noun of action. Thus, Exod. xix. 1 âthe thridde moneth of the goyng of Yrael out [egressionis] of the loond of Egipteâ; but Heb. xii. 10 âin receyuynge [recipiendo] the halowing of himâ; Mark iii. 15 âpower of heelynge [curandi] siknessis, and of castynge out [ejiciendi] fendisâ. Imitation of the Latin gerund was thus apparently an influential factor in the development of the English gerundial use of the verbal nouns. Another influence may have been the literal rendering of the French gerund (identical in form with the present participle) after , as in , Latin , in coming.

The full development of the gerundial use before 1400 led necessarily to an indefinite increase of verbal nouns in -ing, since every verb now had one as an actual or potential dependent. In conjunction with the formal identity of gerund and present participle, it led also, at a later date, to the introduction of gerundial expressions for the perfect and future tenses, and for the passive voice, coinciding in form with the participles of the same tenses and voices. Thus Sidney Arcadia i. (1725) 68 âwant of consideration in not having demanded thus muchâ; Spenser F.Q. iii. iv. 50 âfeare of being fowly shentâ; Hooker Eccl. Pol. i. xi. Â§2 âby being unto God unitedâ; Shakespeare. Two Gentlemen i. iii. 16 âin hauing knowne no trauaile in his youthâ; Tempest iii. i. 19 â'T will weepe for hauing wearied youâ; Mod. âThe news of his being about to return home, instead of having been slain by the enemyâ.

But, although the gerundial use was fully established by 1400, it was a long time before it was distinctly separated from the earlier substantival use. The verbal noun has the (or equivalent) before it, and of (or equivalent) after it; the gerund has neither. A good example of the two constructions side by side, and with identical sense, occurs in Bacon's third Essay: âConcerning the meanes of procuring unity: men must beware, that in the procuring of religious unity, they doe notâ, etc. But, down to the 17th c., mixed constructions were frequent, in which the word in -ing had an adjectival qualification with a verbal regimen, or, conversely, an adverbial qualification with the construction of a noun followed by of: thus Sidney Arcadia i. iv. 15b, âto fall to a sodain straitning themâ; Ibid. i. xii. 56b, âby the well choosing of your commandementsâ.

The gerund still retains one feature of the verbal noun, viz. that of admitting of a preceding possessive case or possessive pronoun, as in âafter John's behaving so strangelyâ, âupon my readily granting itâ. In the literary language this construction is regularly retained with a pronoun, and very generally with a single personal substantive; but, with names of things, and phraseological or involved denominations, the sign of the possessive began to be dropped already by 1600; thus Shakespeare Macbeth i. iii. 44 âBy each at once her choppie finger laying vpon her skinnie lipsâ. No other treatment is now possible in such constructions as âin default of one or other being acceptedâ, âon the general and his staff appearingâ, âin the event of your expectations not being at once realizedâ, âin consequence of much snow having fallenâ; and, in current spoken English, the 's is commonly omitted with all nouns: thus Thackeray Van. Fair xi. 348 âI insist upon Miss Sharp appearingâ, where âMiss Sharp'sâ would now sound pedantic or archaic. Even a pronoun standing before the gerund is put in the objective, in dialect speech; and, when the pronoun is emphatic, this is common in ordinary colloquial English; thus Thackeray Esmond I. 242 âPapa did not care about them learningâ; ---Newcomes âBut who ever heard of them eating an owl?â Chas. Reade Hard Cash (1863) II. 332 âThat is no excuse for him beating you.â So âWhat is the use of me speaking?â

In such constructions the objective noun or pronoun seems to stand in simple apposition to the gerund, the two forming a kind of combined object of the preposition, reminding us of the Greek infinitive with an accusative after a preposition, as in Âµeta t? pa?ada???a? t?? ??a???? âafter John being delivered upâ. But in English there has probably been analogical influence from the construction of the present participle: cf., for instance, âJohn was digging potatoesâ, âWho saw John digging potatoes?â, and âWho ever heard of John (= John's) digging potatoes?â

paco