The Ledge Usage Guide [Archive]

David

05-19-2006, 11:50 AM

Grammar & usage questions crop up from time to time on our Ledge, so I thought we'd have a thread devoted to questions of usage. We have a bunch of students here, & others need some guidance at work, whether they're writing a paper or typing a memo for the boss. So we can use this thread to discuss usage issues or grammar bogglers--asking, answering, arguing, dissing, yelling, screaming & making up (in verbal terms, of course).

I'll start with the difference between masterful & masterly.

Masterful means domineering. It describes a powerful, even bullying, superior:
Stevie felt at times that Mick's bossy & bullying management style was masterful.

Masterly means skillful:
Lindsey's performances on the Tusk Tour were masterly.
The craftsmanship of a Christine McVie song is masterly.

See the difference? Masterful vs. masterly. When you think of masterful, think of the master-servant relationship.

However, when you need the adverb, use masterfully for both senses:
Mick masterfully demanded that Stevie drop Silver Springs from the album.
Lindsey masterfully played Red Rover at Soundstage.

HomerMcvie

05-19-2006, 12:04 PM

bikerchic

05-19-2006, 12:08 PM

Ho ****, does Stevie ever look like Sheryl Crow in that second pic in you sig David. I had to take a double take.

chiliD

05-19-2006, 12:14 PM

I can admit mine, although it should've been rectified in 2nd grade.........

"Whom"

I get confused sometimes on when to use it. And when I do, it just looks funny sitting there, and it's calling me a dumbass for not having it's proper usage down. When am I supposed to use it? And give me three examples.:o

If the prepositions "to" or "from" are in the sentence, "whom" is the proper word to use.

It is ALWAYS "to whom" or "from whom"

As opposed to the contraction, "who'm", as in "Who'm I supposed to call when the house is flooding?"

And, Pete Townshend's band is THE WHO, not THE WHOM.

Ho ****, does Stevie ever look like Sheryl Crow in that second pic in you sig David. I had to take a double take.

I was just thinking that same thing.

David

05-19-2006, 12:14 PM

I can admit mine, although it should've been rectified in 2nd grade.........

"Whom"

I get confused sometimes on when to use it. And when I do, it just looks funny sitting there, and it's calling me a dumbass for not having it's proper usage down. When am I supposed to use it? And give me three examples.:o

Whom is usually either the object of a verb:

"Whom did you see in line at the Christine McVie concert?"

or the object of a preposition:

"Whom does Stevie sing the best with?"

Think of a bunch of prepositions: under, to, with, for, by, between

They all take objective pronouns as objects: me, you, him, her, it, us, them, whom

So when Stevie said "between he & I" on the 1988 Very Special Christmas TV show, she was wrong. She should have said "between him & me."

elie

05-19-2006, 12:16 PM

I can admit mine, although it should've been rectified in 2nd grade.........

"Whom"

I get confused sometimes on when to use it. And when I do, it just looks funny sitting there, and it's calling me a dumbass for not having it's proper usage down. When am I supposed to use it? And give me three examples.:o

Trying to answer that is definitely out of my league since I 'm not american/english, but I 'm writing this as a test for myself. Please correct me if I make mistakes. I have always thought that "whom" is used like, for example: "this is the friend with whom I went out..," or "for whom did you buy this?" etc.
I guess it goes after -what are these called in english grammar- prepositions?? (sp?)
"Who" is used in setences like: "This the guy who stole my car" etc

David, I wrote mine the same time as you were posting your answer..Sorry I didn't see it

HomerMcvie

05-19-2006, 12:19 PM

So when Stevie said "between he & I" on the 1988 Very Special Christmas TV show, she was wrong. She should have said "between him & me."
Believe me, I never dreamed of getting an education at SNU.:lol: :lol: :lol:

HomerMcvie

05-19-2006, 12:29 PM

Yeah, I've always got the "with whom" part.
Here's the sentence I was having trouble with last week, in a letter to my city utilities dept.

"Ms. Maloney is the person who(m?) your department authorized service for."

Now, I "felt" it should be "whom", but then decided that these were city workers reading it(probably high school graduates, at best), so I decided it probably didn't matter.:D

Stupid, deadbeat bi*ch didn't pay her water bill(and ran it up to $140, not to mention $3200 in rent/damages!), and the city's trying to make the property owner pay her utility bills. Said property owner is giving them a fight!;) :wavey:

skcin

05-19-2006, 12:33 PM

I find myself being unable to spell correctly as of late, especially here. Not sure what happened, I used to be a very good speller. :shrug:

I guess this is more of a disclaimer than a usage guide or question. :wavey:

David

05-19-2006, 12:45 PM

Yeah, I've always got the "with whom" part.
Here's the sentence I was having trouble with last week, in a letter to my city utilities dept.

"Ms. Maloney is the person who(m?) your department authorized service for."Whom. "For" is a preposition, & preposition objects need to be in the accusative (aka objective) case.

Mentally recast the syntax to make the construction clearer: "Your department authorized service for Ms. Maloney." ". . . for WHOM?" ". . . for Ms. Maloney, you damn bitch."

You could also just leave out the relative pronoun: Ms. Maloney is the person your department authorized service for." Some employers might encourage the slightly more informal tone in writing to customers, but others might not. That's a matter of house policy, not correctness.

Stevie looks like Sheryl Crow in my sig? (shrug) I dunno. I'm so used to her look on the 1978 tour that she just looks like the Stevie on the '78 tour to me.

SteveMacD

05-19-2006, 12:46 PM

It's NOT "would of," "could of," or "should of," it's "would've," "could've," or "should've."

David

05-19-2006, 12:47 PM

I find myself being unable to spell correctly as of late, especially here. Not sure what happened, I used to be a very good speller. :shrug:You & I both, Paula. (I was going to write the more idiomatic "You & me both" but decided I'd better not in a thread devoted to grammar.)

I was a great speller in my school years but nowadays I need to check my dictionary every fifth word!

Jyqm

05-19-2006, 01:05 PM

Trying to answer that is definitely out of my league since I 'm not american/english, but I 'm writing this as a test for myself. Please correct me if I make mistakes. I have always thought that "whom" is used like, for example: "this is the friend with whom I went out..," or "for whom did you buy this?" etc.
I guess it goes after -what are these called in english grammar- prepositions?? (sp?)
"Who" is used in setences like: "This the guy who stole my car" etc

You got it exactly right, Elie!

A rule of thumb that might help is to realize that "who" and "whom" are relative pronouns which are being substituted for a definite pronoun. "Who" is used in place of "he" or "she;" "whom" in place of "him" or "her." If you try and think of the dependent clause as its own sentence, you should be able to figure it out pretty easily.

To use your examples:

"This is the friend with (?) I went out." You would say, "I went out with him," not, "I went out with he." So "whom" is correct.

"This is the guy (?) stole my car." You would say, "He stole my car," not, "Him stole my car." So in this case, "who" is correct.

Steve MacDougall already tackled my pet peeve about would/could/should of. I wonder what people who constantly make this error think it means.

skcin

05-19-2006, 01:24 PM

You got it exactly right, Elie!

A rule of thumb that might help is to realize that "who" and "whom" are relative pronouns which are being substituted for a definite pronoun. "Who" is used in place of "he" or "she;" "whom" in place of "him" or "her." If you try and think of the dependent clause as its own sentence, you should be able to figure it out pretty easily.

To use your examples:

"This is the friend with (?) I went out." You would say, "I went out with him," not, "I went out with he." So "whom" is correct.

"This is the guy (?) stole my car." You would say, "He stole my car," not, "Him stole my car." So in this case, "who" is correct.

Steve MacDougall already tackled my pet peeve about would/could/should of. I wonder what people who constantly make this error think it means.

Oh! I get it! :nod: Thank you!

You know, there's something similar to the "would of" thing that pisses me off, but I can't think of it right now....

chiliD

05-19-2006, 01:36 PM

Ok, so who (correct usage) wants to take on the 1) "there", "their", "they're" and the 2) "hear" & "here" and the 3) "then/than" debacles?

skcin

05-19-2006, 01:51 PM

They're is a contraction for the two words They and Are. "They're (they are) driving me crazy."

There is a place "Put it over there."

Their is possessive "That's their car."

How's this? "What do they think they're doing over there, going to their house?" :laugh:

Johnny Stew

05-19-2006, 01:59 PM

SteveMacD already discussed my first big pet peeve ("of" when it should be "have"), and HomerMcVie was kind enough to inadvertantly bring up the second....
And when I do, it just looks funny sitting there, and it's calling me a dumbass for not having it's proper usage down.The first instance of "it's" in that sentence is correct, because it's a contraction for "it is." However, the second "it's" is incorrect, because he's using it in a possessive form and an "it" cannot possess something. So it should have been: "it's calling me a dumbass for not having its proper usage down."

Jyqm

05-19-2006, 02:01 PM

There is a place "Put it over there."

It's also used in conjunction with "is" or "are" as an idiom to denote that something does or does not exist.

"Are there any goddamn eggs left?"
"There is no reason to be snippy."
"Or is there?"

trackaghost

05-19-2006, 02:03 PM

1) "there", "their", "they're"

God, that one bugs the hell out of me! The other one is using "to" instead of "too", which I've seen too many (see, the correct use there) times on this board.

Also, adding apostrophes to simple plural nouns, i.e. writing "keys" as "key's".

The abbreviation/text thing that teenagers love to use doesn't bother me much. Language is developing all the time, taking in cultural changes and slang etc. What's considered acceptable today would have horrified English professors of the past. People are always adapting and changing languages, it's natural.

Johnny Stew

05-19-2006, 02:06 PM

Also, adding apostrophes to simple plural nouns, i.e. writing "keys" as "key's"Oh, Lordy... EVERYONE seems to do that these days, young and old alike, and it drives me crazy!

You didn't buy DVD's or CD's, you bought DVDs and CDs. You wouldn't say that you bought "book's," so why would you add an apostrophe to CDs and DVDs?

trackaghost

05-19-2006, 02:15 PM

The first instance of "it's" in that sentence is correct, because it's a contraction for "it is." However, the second "it's" is incorrect, because he's using it in a possessive form and an "it" cannot possess something. So it should have been: "it's calling me a dumbass for not having its proper usage down."

:laugh: The "it's" and "its" thing annoys me too. I think more people make that mistake than any other. Even me sometimes, when I write without thinking.

trackaghost

05-19-2006, 02:19 PM

It's also used in conjunction with "is" or "are" as an idiom to denote that something does or does not exist.

"Are there any goddamn eggs left?"
"There is no reason to be snippy."
"Or is there?"

Is that a conversation you had today Jim?

Johnny Stew

05-19-2006, 02:22 PM

Is that a conversation you had today Jim?Frighteningly enough, it was with himself! :shocked:

skcin

05-19-2006, 02:33 PM

Loose: "Those pants are too loose on you."
Lose: "I don't want to lose any more money."

Breath: "It took my breath away."
Breathe: "It was hard to breathe."

HomerMcvie

05-19-2006, 02:40 PM

The first instance of "it's" in that sentence is correct, because it's a contraction for "it is." However, the second "it's" is incorrect, because he's using it in a possessive form and an "it" cannot possess something. So it should have been: "it's calling me a dumbass for not having its proper usage down."
I actually caught that after I posted.

Good lord we're an anal retentive bunch!!!!:rolleyes:

HomerMcvie

05-19-2006, 02:49 PM

Whom. "For" is a preposition, & preposition objects need to be in the accusative (aka objective) case.

Mentally recast the syntax to make the construction clearer: "Your department authorized service for Ms. Maloney." ". . . for WHOM?" ". . . for Ms. Maloney, you damn bitch."

You could also just leave out the relative pronoun: Ms. Maloney is the person your department authorized service for." Some employers might encourage the slightly more informal tone in writing to customers, but others might not. That's a matter of house policy, not correctness.

Stevie looks like Sheryl Crow in my sig? (shrug) I dunno. I'm so used to her look on the 1978 tour that she just looks like the Stevie on the '78 tour to me.
While just out in my truck, repairing some speaker connections, I REALIZED that it should have been phrased "for whom you authorized service", BUT ALAS, I'd been on a litany of -"YOUR department"s and "Ms. Maloney"s-finger pointing. I was trying to DRIVE the point home, that I had NOTHING to do with using, nor paying for, her utilities. I didn't want to break my finger pointing run!

My biggest problem is that I've been out of school for 15 years, and I deal with idiot musicians. My brain is turning to mush from non-usage. There's a TON of common sense required for what I do. Very little book lernin'.

xdreamsunwindx

05-19-2006, 02:51 PM

Ok, so who (correct usage) wants to take on the *snip* "then/than" debacles?

Then, used properly in a sentence:

"Good heavens, if Bob doesn't stop talking about his fabulous new watch, then I will have to take it upon myself to shove it up his ass!"

Than, used properly in a sentence:

"Debbie may have bigger boobs than Tammy, but it's obvious that bitch be hittin' up the silicone every now and then."

Side note, I wish we had cooler grammar books.

Rickypt

05-19-2006, 04:26 PM

Yeah, I've always got the "with whom" part.
Here's the sentence I was having trouble with last week, in a letter to my city utilities dept.

"Ms. Maloney is the person who(m?) your department authorized service for."

Actually, it is technically incorrect to end a sentence with preposition, so the gramatically correct sentence is "Ms. Maloney is the person for whom your department authorized service."

Of course, you can avoid all of this by saying "Your department authorized service for Ms. Maloney."

One grammatical point I always found interesting, and is almost always ignored, is that a colon is never to be used after "is" or "are".

So, it is incorrect to write:

My favorite singers are:

Stevie Nicks
Maria McKee
Dolly Parton

macfanken

05-19-2006, 04:31 PM

Good lord we're an anal retentive bunch!!!!:rolleyes:

no ****. :shocked:

Rickypt

05-19-2006, 04:39 PM

One mistake I often make is putting a plural verb after "neither".

Example:

Neither my mom nor I were happy with the decision. (incorrect)

Neither my mom no I was happy with the decision. (correct)

I love grammar. :o

Jyqm

05-19-2006, 04:46 PM

One mistake I often make is putting a plural verb after "neither".

I do this sometimes, too. Same with "none."

Incorrect: Thankfully, none of the chiffonheads were wearing the same shawl.

Correct: None of the Buckingholics was convinced that the man would actually release an album this year.

amber

05-19-2006, 04:48 PM

Masterful: Revealing mastery or skill; expert: a masterful technique; masterful moviemaking.
straight outta the dic, David.

David

05-19-2006, 05:22 PM

Masterful: Revealing mastery or skill; expert: a masterful technique; masterful moviemaking.
straight outta the dic, David.See my comments a few weeks ago about prescriptive vs. descriptive dictionaries. If you're looking for judicial usage guidance--the dos & don'ts--prescriptive dictionaries & usage guides will be far more helpful to you. Nonprescriptive (or descriptive) dictionaries generally only tell you how a word or phrase is used among the native-speaking population, not necessarily how it should be used in a standardized context (e.g., Received Standard English & Standard Written English) or how it is perceived among writers & editors in terms of standardization or correctness.

For more info on "masterful" vs. "masterly," see the following:

1. Fowler's "Modern English Usage" (2nd)
2. Garner's "Dictionary of American Usage & Style"
3. Follett's "Modern American Usage"
4. Partridge's "Usage & Abusage"

The prescriptive-descriptive battle came to a head among dictionaries in 1961 with the publication of Webster's Third New International. It was the publication of the Third that precipitated the compiling & publishing of the American Heritage Dictionary in 1969, which sought to redress the perceived lexicographical wrongs of the former. See Dwight Macdonald's magisterial (& masterly) essay "The String Untuned."

P.S. No dictionary is completely descriptive or prescriptive. I'm referring to general editorial & lexicographic principles that underlie all dictionaries. Also, it's always a good idea to read the front matter in any dictionary you use so that you know just what sort of guidance on correct & incorrect usages you're going to find. Different dictionaries have widely different agendas. For an interesting demonstration, pick a usage shibboleth (e.g., "disinterested," "masterful," "meticulous," "decimate," "restauranteur" [sic], etc.) & compare how various dictionaries label it & define it.

chiliD

05-19-2006, 05:28 PM

One grammatical point I always found interesting, and is almost always ignored, is that a colon is never to be used after "is" or "are".

So, it is incorrect to write:

My favorite singers are:

Stevie Nicks
Maria McKee
Dolly Parton

Ok, on this one I want actual proof because I think YOU'RE incorrect about that.

Oh, another one:

When a word ends in the letter "s" and you want to make it a possessive, you DON'T add an apostrophe "s", the apostrophe alone will suffice.

INCORRECT: "I went to my parents's house."
CORRECT: "I went to my parents' house."

amber

05-19-2006, 05:31 PM

^^^

Interesting. I haven't read about these distinctions before. For obvious reasons. :laugh: My dictionary had the same definitions you used for masterful listed first, I must say.
Luckily, since I'm a native speaker in common usage, I can still use "masterful" in the way that I enjoy. Perhaps I'll keep that particular usage of it out of my academic writings.

Jyqm

05-19-2006, 05:37 PM

Ok, on this one I want actual proof because I think YOU'RE incorrect about that.

About the colon? He's right. Why would you need a colon after the verb "to be?" It's completely unnecessary. "My favorite singers are Stevie Nicks, Maria McKee and Dolly Parton." Bam. If you want to make it a list, the verb becomes unnecessary.

My favorite singers:
Stevie Nicks
Maria McKee
Dolly Parton

Oh, another one:

When a word ends in the letter "s" and you want to make it a possessive, you DON'T add an apostrophe "s", the apostrophe alone will suffice.

INCORRECT: "I went to my parents's house."
CORRECT: "I went to my parents' house."

In a similar vein: If a person's surname ends in "s" and you are referring to multiple members of that person's family, you add an "es." Hence, "keeping up with the Joneses." Or, "We're having lunch with the Robertses tomorrow." Or, "I hate those Flanderses."

David

05-19-2006, 05:59 PM

Folks, remember that correct vs. incorrect is often not absolute. For a variety of reasons (conflicting standards of correctness, geographical differences, the passage of time, changing standards of bias, dialectical drift, TV & newspaper influences, differences among publishing house styles), there are dozens upon dozens of disputed usage rules--such as the one about ending a sentence with a preposition (see the very sensible entry in Fowler "preposition at end" for opinions that may surprise you).

Put all advice into context, & seek out further commentary! :thumbsup:

chiliD

05-19-2006, 06:03 PM

About the colon? He's right. Why would you need a colon after the verb "to be?" It's completely unnecessary. "My favorite singers are Stevie Nicks, Maria McKee and Dolly Parton." Bam. If you want to make it a list, the verb becomes unnecessary.

My favorite singers:
Stevie Nicks
Maria McKee
Dolly Parton

I'm still not convinced.

Johnny Stew

05-19-2006, 06:25 PM

Folks, remember that correct vs. incorrect is often not absolute. For a variety of reasons, there are dozens upon dozens of disputed usage rules--such as the one about ending a sentence with a preposition.One of my favorite jokes:

A Southern woman attends a party at the home of a friend. She's introduced to a Northern couple and asks, "where y'all from?" The Northern woman responds in a haughty tone, "We're from a place where we don't end our sentences with a preposition." The Southern woman replies, "Well, let me rephrase that -- where y'all from, bitch?"

Jyqm

05-19-2006, 06:26 PM

I'm still not convinced.

If you're using a colon in a sentence to denote a list, the clause which precedes the colon must be independent. "My favorite singers are" does not fit the bill.

http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/colons.asp (Of course, there are always variations in usage, as David mentioned; Rule #2 on this site notes that some publications do allow use of a colon after a verb.)

irishgrl

05-19-2006, 06:31 PM

"between He and I" is wrong?

is there a rule? and please state it simply. Grammar always confuses me.

In fact, I have my trusty copy of A Writer's Reference (Diana Hacker) here to help me so, please, explain.

irishgrl

05-19-2006, 06:40 PM

I do this sometimes, too. Same with "none."

Incorrect: Thankfully, none of the chiffonheads were wearing the same shawl.

Correct: None of the Buckingholics was convinced that the man would actually release an album this year.

wait: the first sentence has "none....were" and you say that's incorrect, but
"none......was" is ok?

why? all these rules!!!! ACK!!!!!

Ive been pretty lucky, Im an intuitive writer, I dont worry about the rules, yet I seem to get it right most of the time. (no glaring errors anyway!)

Jyqm

05-19-2006, 06:45 PM

"between He and I" is wrong?

is there a rule? and please state it simply. Grammar always confuses me.

Accusitive pronouns always follow prepositions, simple as that.

Look at me. I know all about him. I can see right through him. He's got "sleazebag" written all over him. I used to look up to him, but I am so over him now. Anyway, this isn't about him. This is between me and her. I haven't heard from her in a week. What's gotten into her? Whatever it is, it's beyond me. But it's up to her to get the money back from him.

David

05-19-2006, 06:46 PM

"between He and I" is wrong? Yes :sorry:
is there a rule? and please state it simply. Grammar always confuses me.I'm the world's worst at trying to explain, so if I confuse even further than I have already, kick me in the pants, irishgrl. But make it feel good. :xoxo:

Any pronoun used as the object of a preposition should be in the accusative case. "Between" is a preposition, so the pronouns in the phrase need to be accusative.

Let me know whether that makes sense.

I'll review the terminology:

Nominative Pronouns
I .... you .... he .... she .... it .... we .... they

Accusative Pronouns
me .... you .... him .... her .... it .... us .... them

When you use any of these pronouns in a prepositional phrase, use the accusative.

Think of it this way: You wouldn't say "between we," would you? (I hope not.) Everyone knows to say "between us." But when another pronoun is added, people seem to get confused. Once again: use the ACCUSATIVE PRONOUNS with a preposition-----"between him & her," "among us," "with her & me," "under him," "atop it," "over you," etc.

P.S. "Nominative" is just the fancy Latinate word for "subjective" & "accusative" is the fancy Latinate word for "objective."

Jyqm

05-19-2006, 06:47 PM

wait: the first sentence has "none....were" and you say that's incorrect, but
"none......was" is ok?

why? all these rules!!!!

"None" is considered a singular pronoun. Think of it as "not one."

David

05-19-2006, 06:49 PM

Accusitive pronouns always follow prepositions, simple as that.Well, jyqm, it's looking pretty goofy & zany with all this repetition.

chiliD

05-19-2006, 06:52 PM

Rule #2 on this site notes that some publications do allow use of a colon after a verb.)

Then I'll invoke "Rule #2". :lol:

irishgrl

05-19-2006, 06:52 PM

Accusitive pronouns always follow prepositions, simple as that.

Look at me. I know all about him. I can see right through him. He's got "sleazebag" written all over him. I used to look up to him, but I am so over him now. Anyway, this isn't about him. This is between me and her. I haven't heard from her in a week. What's gotten into her? Whatever it is, it's beyond me. But it's up to her to get the money back from him.

what is an "accusative pronoun?" and I forget what a preposition is.

and now for my entry into this little soire:

effect, affect.

good LAWD, its amazing how often people goof those up.....

Jyqm

05-19-2006, 07:00 PM

what is an "accusative pronoun?" and I forget what a preposition is.

The accusative pronouns: me, you, him, her, it, us, you, them. Accusative pronouns always stand in for the object of a sentence or prepositional phrase.

Their counterparts would be the nominative pronouns: I, you, he, she, it, we, you, they. Those always stand in for the subject of a sentence.

Prepositions are all those relational words I used in my previous post. They're always followed by a noun or accusative pronoun.

Look at me. I know all about him. I can see right through him. He's got "sleazebag" written all over him. I used to look up to him, but I am so over him now. Anyway, this isn't about him. This is between me and her. I haven't heard from her in a week. What's gotten into her? Whatever it is, it's beyond me. But it's up to her to get the money back from him.

David

05-19-2006, 07:03 PM

Then I'll invoke "Rule #2". :lol:steve, you work for government, right?

You'd probably want to consult the U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual, which sets editorial policy for government publications:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/stylemanual/index.html

Now in my line of work at the moment, I use the Microsoft Manual of Style for Technical Publications, which requires me to introduce all lists with colons--even when I use the list points to complete the sentence. In my former life as a newspaper copy editor, I used the Associated Press Stylebook, which had its own rules on the matter.

House style is house style, wherever you work. Editorial policy is usually set by the house styleguide in order to create a consistent look & feel throughout everything that organization publishes. That's what I was saying earlier: For usages & styles in dispute, settle on one & use it consistently. That's one of the most important principles in editing.

irishgrl

05-19-2006, 07:06 PM

David

05-19-2006, 07:07 PM

and now for my entry into this little soire:

effect, affect.

good LAWD, its amazing how often people goof those up.....Let's help Johnny Stew effect a change for the better here at the Ledge. All the fighting is bringing down the group's collective affect.

irishgrl

05-19-2006, 07:13 PM

The accusative pronouns: me, you, him, her, it, us, you, them. Accusative pronouns always stand in for the object of a sentence or prepositional phrase.

Their counterparts would be the nominative pronouns: I, you, he, she, it, we, you, they. Those always stand in for the subject of a sentence.

Prepositions are all those relational words I used in my previous post. They're always followed by a noun or accusative pronoun.

Look at me. I know all about him. I can see right through him. He's got "sleazebag" written all over him. I used to look up to him, but I am so over him now. Anyway, this isn't about him. This is between me and her. I haven't heard from her in a week. What's gotten into her? Whatever it is, it's beyond me. But it's up to her to get the money back from him.

please see the highlighted part above. why wouldnt you say between "she and I" instead of "me and her?"

I dont know why but I seem to have this aversion to anything that uses ME instead of I. Wasnt there a rule that it was more proper to use "I" instead of "me?"......

OK: I got out my trusty little Writer's Reference and I want to clarify some terms
instead of "accusative" my reference refers to the following as SUBJECTIVE CASE:
I/we/you/he/she/it/they.
OBJECTIVE CASE (not Nominative):
me/us/you/him/her/it/them

Im still not clear why "between he and I" is incorrect??? "between me and him" sounds uneducated for some reason?

I guess what Im really trying to find out is when you use subjective and when you use objective? its not really clear....

what about something like: "this is between ME and YOUR mother!" there's one objective case and one subjective case!

HOLD THE PHONE!!!!!!!! "you" and "it" are in both lists!!!! what now??????

macfanken

05-19-2006, 07:21 PM

David, what about ampersands? They're very stylish but are there instances when they should not be used?

The Tower

05-19-2006, 07:27 PM

I've really gotten tired of the whole "your" when it's supposed to be "you're" routine that seems to be going on lately.

Paula already brought up my most hated, which is the whole "loose" in place of "lose" thing. And the worst version of that one is when someone writes something like this: "The Tower is a looser." OYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!

And please people, the word is spelled "weird", not "wierd". I realize that's not a usage thing but it really bugs the **** outta me.

irishgrl

05-19-2006, 07:32 PM

David

05-19-2006, 08:05 PM

I dont know why but I seem to have this aversion to anything that uses ME instead of I. Wasnt there a rule that it was more proper to use "I" instead of "me?"......It's proper to use "I" when you need the subjective pronoun.
OK: I got out my trusty little Writer's Reference and I want to clarify some terms instead of "accusative" my reference refers to the following as SUBJECTIVE CASE:
I/we/you/he/she/it/they.
OBJECTIVE CASE (not Nominative):
me/us/you/him/her/it/themThat's what I told you earlier. Nominative = subjective. Accusative = objective.
Im still not clear why "between he and I" is incorrect???Because "between" is a preposition.
"between me and him" sounds uneducated for some reason?It's perfectly correct. In fact, it's the only correct choice.
I guess what Im really trying to find out is when you use subjective and when you use objective? its not really clear....These are noun & pronoun cases. It would take pages to cover all possible uses of the various cases. But in general use the subjective as the subject of the clause (in other words, the agent of the verb) & use the objective as the object of the verb as well as the object of any preposition.
what about something like: "this is between ME and YOUR mother!" there's one objective case and one subjective case!"me" is objective case & "your" is what's called genitive, or possessive, case. However, the phrase "your mother" in this example is, grammatically, in the objective case, too. (Yes, that's right--phrases can have case, too.)
HOLD THE PHONE!!!!!!!! "you" and "it" are in both lists!!!! what now??????You're off the hook with "you" & "it"! Isn't that wonderful?

irishgrl

05-19-2006, 08:14 PM

It's proper to use "I" when you need the subjective pronoun.
That's what I told you earlier. Nominative = subjective. Accusative = objective.
Because "between" is a preposition.
It's perfectly correct. In fact, it's the only correct choice.
These are noun & pronoun cases. It would take pages to cover all possible uses of the various cases. But in general use the subjective as the subject of the clause (in other words, the agent of the verb) & use the objective as the object of the verb as well as the object of any preposition.
"me" is objective case & "your" is what's called genitive, or possessive, case. However, the phrase "your mother" in this example is, grammatically, in the objective case, too. (Yes, that's right--phrases can have case, too.)
You're off the hook with "you" & "it"! Isn't that wonderful?

so, from now on, Im constructing sentences that look like this:

this is between you and me!!!!!

(not sure how to use "it" yet, but when Im sober I'll give it a shot!)

btw: correct yourself. NOMITIVE = OBJECTIVE, ACCUSATIVE = SUBJECTIVE

and its all GREEK to me. (and every single one of those words looks misspelled to me too.......go figure)

David

05-19-2006, 08:14 PM

David, what about ampersands? They're very stylish but are there instances when they should not be used?I like ampersands! I use them all the time when I post, which you probably noticed a long time ago.

But I'm being a smartass. To use or not to use the ampersand seems to me a decision best left to each individual concern--in other words, a house style decision rather than a usage rule that applies to everyone everywhere.

For specific house style rules, check the Chicago Manual of Style or the MLA Handbook. It's probably best to avoid ampersands in formal contexts: term papers, articles submitted for publication, final drafts of official documents, &c. So, if you're a disgruntled English lord under King John & you're drafting the Magna Carta, use "and" instead of the ampersand.

David

05-19-2006, 08:16 PM

so, from now on, Im constructing sentences that look like this:

this is between you and me!!!!!You ROCK, babe!!! :thumbsup: :] :thumbsup: :blob1:

David

05-19-2006, 08:20 PM

sbtw: correct yourself. NOMITIVE = OBJECTIVE ACCUSATIVE = SUBJECTIVENope.

Nominative = subjective
Accusative = objective

http://web.uvic.ca/wguide/Pages/GramSub.html

Check your book again. Maybe you found a ****up in it & can now send the author or publisher a correction!

irishgrl

05-19-2006, 08:21 PM

You ROCK, babe!!! :thumbsup: :] :thumbsup: :blob1:

Well *blushes* thanx for noticing! :xoxo:

mylittledemon

05-19-2006, 08:26 PM

irishgrl

05-19-2006, 08:28 PM

Nope.

Nominative = subjective
Accusative = objective

http://web.uvic.ca/wguide/Pages/GramSub.html

Check your book again. Maybe you found a ****up in it & can now send the author or publisher a correction!

honest to GAWD David, thats what she said:

AHEM; PAGE(S) 147-149

G3-C: USE PERSONAL PRONOUNS IN THE PROPER CASE

the personal prounouns in the following chart change what is known as case form according to their grammatical function in a sentence. Pronouns functioning as subjects or subject complements appear in the subjective case; those functioning as objects appear in the objective case, and those functioning as possessive appear in the possessive case.

SUBJECTIVE CASE
I/WE/YOU/HE/SHE/IT/THEY

OBJECTIVE CASE
ME/US/YOU//HIM/HER/IT/THEM

POSSESSIVE CASE
MY/OUR/YOUR/HIS/HER/ITS/THEIR

Red

05-19-2006, 09:26 PM

Also "A lot" is two words ...its not "alot"

THANK YOU!!!

That's as bad as anywayS.

Miss Vicky

05-19-2006, 09:50 PM

anywayS.

Guilty. :wavey:

strandinthewind

05-19-2006, 10:09 PM

elie

05-20-2006, 04:15 AM

THANK YOU!!!

That's as bad as anywayS.

I never got that. Is it incorrect to say anywayS instead of anyway? I was under the impression that americans use it a lot, so I figured it was ok. It does sound odd to me though.

bretonbanquet

05-20-2006, 05:11 AM

I never got that. Is it incorrect to say anywayS instead of anyway? I was under the impression that americans use it a lot, so I figured it was ok. It does sound odd to me though.

If 'Anyways' is something that you guys say, then it's OK to write it in informal settings. It's not grammatically correct, but there you go. I can see how some people would get irritated by it though :laugh:

English is a language that has been heavily mangled throughout its existence thanks to all the different cultures that use it around the world. Some of those manglings inevitably make it through to become accepted grammar. You lot started all that :wavey:

Jyqm

05-20-2006, 05:29 AM

please see the highlighted part above. why wouldnt you say between "she and I" instead of "me and her?"

As David and I have noted, the object of a preposition always takes the objective (or accusative) case.

I dont know why but I seem to have this aversion to anything that uses ME instead of I. Wasnt there a rule that it was more proper to use "I" instead of "me?"......

There's no "more proper" or "less proper" here, there's just "proper" and "improper." I think I know what you're talking about, though. There was a time when a lot of people used to say things like, "Me and Joanie are going to get ice cream," which is incorrect. "Joanie and I are going to get ice cream." "I" is a subject of the sentence, so you need the subjective (or nominative) case. At some point, somebody must have made a big deal about this, and everybody realized that this was wrong, and they all started using "I" and "he" and "she" a lot more. But they overcompensated and started carrying it over to prepositional phrases, which is incorrect. When you're talking to some people, you can tell they're actually making an effort to say "between he and I" because they think it's correct and sounds smart, but they're wrong.

OK: I got out my trusty little Writer's Reference and I want to clarify some terms
instead of "accusative" my reference refers to the following as SUBJECTIVE CASE:
I/we/you/he/she/it/they.
OBJECTIVE CASE (not Nominative):
me/us/you/him/her/it/them

You're getting mixed up. "Subjective" and "nominative" mean the same thing. "Objective" and "accusative" mean the same thing. Different guides will use different terms. Other than that, you're correct. The subjective pronouns are I, we, you, he, she, it and they. The objective pronouns are me, us, you, him, her, it and them.

Im still not clear why "between he and I" is incorrect???

There's not really any other way to explain it. The object of a preposition always takes the objective case. That's all there is to it.

I guess what Im really trying to find out is when you use subjective and when you use objective? its not really clear....

Simple enough: The subjective case applies to the subject of a sentence. The objective case applies to the object of a sentence, or to the object of a preposition.

what about something like: "this is between ME and YOUR mother!" there's one objective case and one subjective case!

No, "your" is a possessive pronoun, indicating that "mother" belongs to "you." "Me" and "mother" are the two objects of the preposition "between" in that sentence. "Mother" is in the objective case here, although English nouns and their articles never change, no matter what case they're in.

HOLD THE PHONE!!!!!!!! "you" and "it" are in both lists!!!! what now??????

"You" and "it" don't change. They stay the same whether used in the subjective case or objective case.

The butler punched you. You punched the butler.

I smelled it. It smelled funny.

Rickypt

05-20-2006, 07:11 PM

Ok, on this one I want actual proof because I think YOU'RE incorrect about that.

http://www.gwr.arizona.edu/overcoming3.htm

DON'T USE COLONS where they don't belong:
--After TO BE verbs like IS or ARE

Bad: His problems were: poverty, hunger, and disease.

Rickypt

05-20-2006, 07:21 PM

David

05-21-2006, 10:34 AM

The phrase "can't help but ..." ("I can't help but think she hates dogs") is a solecism that should be avoided. On this, I part company with the estimable Bryan Garner, author of "The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage & Style," who says "can't help but" is such a widespread construction at this point that it should no longer be considered incorrect.

Sorry, Mr. Garner, but letting the wording stand will have no benefit, & the result would continue to be confusion, since the phrase means exactly the opposite of what it's intended to mean. When I see it in print, I wonder just what the writer meant. Did he use the form deliberately in order to say the opposite of what you expected him to say? Did he use the form with no knowledge of its ambiguity? As with so many other errors, readers are left puzzled.

The correct idioms are 1) "can't help" followed by the gerund form & 2) "can't but" followed by the root infinitive.

A. I can't help thinking that Mick is eager to start another crass business venture.

B. I can't but agree that Stevie's work declined in quality in the 1990s.

Jyqm

05-21-2006, 11:49 AM

Let's talk Latin, shall we?

1) "per se" - This is a Latin phrase meaning "by, of, or in itself." In other words, "intrinsically." Per se. Not "per say."

2) "etc." - This is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase "et cetera," meaning "and the rest" or "and other such things." It is not written "ect," for obvious reasons. I think the reason people write this incorrectly is because they pronounce it incorrectly when they speak it. It's pronounced just as it's written, though: "et cetera." Not "eck cetera," as many people seem to say.

Mari

05-21-2006, 11:55 AM

Ik denk dat ik het voortaan maar bij het nederlands houd, dan weet ik tenminste zeker dat ik geen stomme spelfouten maak... of was het nou Nederlands met een hoofdletter? Verrekte spelvernieuwing!

goldustsongbird

05-21-2006, 12:01 PM

It's NOT "would of," "could of," or "should of," it's "would've," "could've," or "should've."

That drives me insane. I also can't stand people making 'a lot' and 'at least' one word. Atleast.... *rips hair out*

I had a friend who said "agleast" when she spoke, too. My ears burned each time.

Jyqm

05-21-2006, 12:04 PM

That drives me insane. I also can't stand people making 'a lot' and 'at least' one word. Atleast.... *rips hair out*

Speaking of which, can we declare a moratorium on committing the same sin with regard to Stevie song titles?

goldustsongbird

05-21-2006, 12:10 PM

Speaking of which, can we declare a moratorium on committing the same sin with regard to Stevie song titles?

As in StandBack?:distress: I think that's the only one I've seen put together as one word.

Jyqm

05-21-2006, 12:24 PM

As in StandBack?:distress: I think that's the only one I've seen put together as one word.

"Everyday" is another offender. Not a bad description of the song, but not its proper title.

Actually, that's another good point to make in this thread:

"Every day" is an adverbial phrase, referring to something which happens daily.

"Everyday" is an adjective meaning commonplace or ordinary, or appropriate for routine use.

(Other Stevie song titles that need not be shoved together: "Bella Donna," "Wild Heart.")

goldustsongbird

05-21-2006, 12:32 PM

"Everyday" is another offender. Not a bad description of the song, but not its proper title.

Actually, that's another good point to make in this thread:

"Every day" is an adverbial phrase, referring to something which happens daily.

"Everyday" is an adjective meaning commonplace or ordinary, or appropriate for routine use.

(Other Stevie song titles that need not be shoved together: "Bella Donna," "Wild Heart.")

Yeah, that's another one. I've never seen Wild Heart put together. Wildheart? :o
That's almost as bad as Goldust Woman. I saw that in a Rumours album review once, frighteningly enough. I'm gonna hope and pray that it was just a weird typo.

Rickypt

05-21-2006, 12:51 PM

As in StandBack?:distress: I think that's the only one I've seen put together as one word.

"That's Alright"

Christine makes her own errors; that "you, you, you, you, you and I" song should be "you, you, you, you, you, and me".

Obviously in music the rules are broken to sound better to the ear.

Jyqm

05-21-2006, 01:03 PM

"That's Alright"

Although (I almost just typed "all though"... and then "all most") that's the actual title of the song, so that's Stevie's fault, not the fans'.

We had a very good thread about solecisms in Fleetwood Mac lyrics in the Rumours forum a while back. Also (all so?) started by David, of course.

But yeah, proper grammar has never been at the top of the priority list in most popular music, nor should it be.

ragandbone

05-21-2006, 01:16 PM

(Other Stevie song titles that need not be shoved together: "Bella Donna," "Wild Heart.")
If you shove the words together you are talking about a poisonous herb, or a Daniel Lanois album.

I find that I am never sure whether to use "which" or "that" and no amount of study in my style and grammar books has ever cemented the rule. I believe I used to understand when to use each, but now the neural connection is broken. It is like the block I have with the spelling of occasion, a word I missed in the county finals of my 8th grade spelling bee. I will never be sure of the spelling of that word.

Does anyone here own the Transitive Vampire (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679418601/002-7697354-8683268?v=glance&n=283155)? The author's example sentences are very amusing.

Jyqm

05-21-2006, 02:02 PM

I find that I am never sure whether to use "which" or "that" and no amount of study in my style and grammar books has ever cemented the rule. I believe I used to understand when to use each, but now the neural connection is broken. It is like the block I have with the spelling of occasion, a word I missed in the county finals of my 8th grade spelling bee. I will never be sure of the spelling of that word.

I think "that" and "which," at this point, are acceptably interchangeable in most cases. There is a distinction, but I think even grammar books these days recognize that it's not really worth making.

"That" is actually a fairly tricky word. There are four uses of it:

1) as a noun/pronoun. "That is one of my favorite songs."
2) as a determiner. "That pie is tastier than the others."
3) as a conjunction. "I think even most grammar books these days recognize that it's not really worth making."
4) as a relative pronoun. "I used to put up with her attitude, but telling me I look fat was the straw that broke the camel's back." (This is the one that is sometimes interchangeable with "which.")

I think the general rule for that/which is that if the clause is absolutely necessary for the sentence to make sense, use "that."

"Dogs that bite are dangerous." If you take out the clause "that bite," the sentence doesn't mean the same thing anymore: "Dogs are dangerous." So you use "that."

"The article, which talks about the dangers of owning large dogs, was printed in Sunday's paper." This sentence still makes sense and means the same thing if you take out the clause: "The article was printed in Sunday's paper." So you use "which," and you also usually separate the clause with commas.

I think that's the rule, anyway.

Johnny Stew

05-21-2006, 02:39 PM

Although that's the actual title of the song, so that's Stevie's fault, not the fans'.I think the one that stands out for me the most, is "Skies The Limit." Eek!
Granted "skies" looks more aesthetically pleasing than "sky's," but that doesn't excuse it.

elie

05-22-2006, 03:26 AM

3) as a conjunction. "I think even most grammar b

I think the general rule for that/which is that if the clause is absolutely necessary for the sentence to make sense, use "that."

"Dogs that bite are dangerous." If you take out the clause "that bite," the sentence doesn't mean the same thing anymore: "Dogs are dangerous." So you use "that."

"The article, which talks about the dangers of owning large dogs, was printed in Sunday's paper." This sentence still makes sense and means the same thing if you take out the clause: "The article was printed in Sunday's paper." So you use "which," and you also usually separate the clause with commas.

I think that's the rule, anyway.

Jyqm, that's really very interesting! I knew I have to put a comma before "which" (not necessary with "that") but I didn't have a particular rule in mind as to when it is more correct to use "that" or "which"..

skcin

05-22-2006, 08:24 AM

2) "etc." - This is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase "et cetera," meaning "and the rest" or "and other such things." It is not written "ect," for obvious reasons. I think the reason people write this incorrectly is because they pronounce it incorrectly when they speak it. It's pronounced just as it's written, though: "et cetera." Not "eck cetera," as many people seem to say.

God bless you, sir. This is a HUGE pet peeve of mine.

I think the one that stands out for me the most, is "Skies The Limit." Eek!
Granted "skies" looks more aesthetically pleasing than "sky's," but that doesn't excuse it.

That has driven me crazy for years.

cliffdweller

05-22-2006, 09:42 AM

I've been reading through this thread now for about 15 minutes (albeit half-assedly) and I've gotta say that this is one of the most boring threads I've read in a long time! :laugh: :laugh:

I'm sorry, I guess it's just that I can't stand lengthy conversation about prescriptivist grammar. ~snooze~

I know, I know, move on to another thread, and here I go...

:wavey:

DrummerDeanna

05-22-2006, 09:52 AM

There is no "x" in Espresso.

That's all. :D

skcin

05-22-2006, 10:36 AM

It's Christopher REEVE. NOT REEVES :mad:

I don't know what that has to do with anything, but there it is.

Jyqm

05-22-2006, 10:48 AM

It's Christopher REEVE. NOT REEVES :mad:

I don't know what that has to do with anything, but there it is.

However it is George Reeves.

Also, because I feel I should let everybody know what a horrible person I am, my original response to this post was going to be: "Correction: It was Christopher Reeve!"

Am I the only one who liked Village of the Damned?

skcin

05-22-2006, 10:59 AM

^ I thought about posting "was" but it seemed too morbid.

BTW - it brings up the point - can you ever use "it's" for "it was" or only "it is?" I'm almost positive "it is" is the only one. Am I correct?

Jyqm

05-22-2006, 11:05 AM

BTW - it brings up the point - can you ever use "it's" for "it was" or only "it is?" I'm almost positive "it is" is the only one. Am I correct?

You are correct: it's, there's, here's, he's, she's - the "s" stands only for the present tense "is." Just as "you're" means "you are," not "you were." And "I'm" means "I am."

Also on the apostrophe-s front, it might be interesting to note that the apostrophe-s used to form possesive nouns is actually a contraction of "his," though saying or writing "John his tattoo" became obsolete long ago.

Rickypt

05-22-2006, 11:19 AM

Although (I almost just typed "all though"... and then "all most") that's the actual title of the song, so that's Stevie's fault, not the fans'.

Ah, I misunderstood your original post. I thought you were referring to Stevie's errors.

Rickypt

05-22-2006, 11:21 AM

gotta

It's "got to". ;).

:lol:

David

05-22-2006, 11:54 AM

I've been reading through this thread now for about 15 minutes (albeit half-assedly) and I've gotta say that this is one of the most boring threads I've read in a long time! :laugh: :laugh:

I'm sorry, I guess it's just that I can't stand lengthy conversation about prescriptivist grammar. ~snooze~You could find at least one ledgie who could make that criticism of virtually every thread on the ledge. So I don't think this thread is any more widely boring than another thread.

amber

05-22-2006, 11:57 AM

You could find at least one ledgie who could make that criticism of virtually every thread on the ledge. So I don't think this thread is any more widely boring than another thread.

I have to admit, I changed one of my spelling errors last night in an assignment because of this thread. It was a ChiliD tip, one that I knew already but that wasn't so concrete in my mind as to be automatic, apparently. It was the plural "s" with just an apostrophe afterwards thing.

ragandbone

05-22-2006, 12:34 PM

Thanks for the explanation and examples, Jyqm!
I would have chosen correctly in most of your examples, just using my ear, and not the rules, so perhaps the instances in which I am confused are actually ones in which "which" would be as appropriate as "that".

I think "that" and "which," at this point, are acceptably interchangeable in most cases. There is a distinction, but I think even grammar books these days recognize that it's not really worth making.

"That" is actually a fairly tricky word. There are four uses of it:

1) as a noun/pronoun. "That is one of my favorite songs."
2) as a determiner. "That pie is tastier than the others."
3) as a conjunction. "I think even most grammar books these days recognize that it's not really worth making."
4) as a relative pronoun. "I used to put up with her attitude, but telling me I look fat was the straw that broke the camel's back." (This is the one that is sometimes interchangeable with "which.")

I think the general rule for that/which is that if the clause is absolutely necessary for the sentence to make sense, use "that."

"Dogs that bite are dangerous." If you take out the clause "that bite," the sentence doesn't mean the same thing anymore: "Dogs are dangerous." So you use "that."

"The article, which talks about the dangers of owning large dogs, was printed in Sunday's paper." This sentence still makes sense and means the same thing if you take out the clause: "The article was printed in Sunday's paper." So you use "which," and you also usually separate the clause with commas.

I think that's the rule, anyway.

chiliD

05-22-2006, 01:18 PM

I have to admit, I changed one of my spelling errors last night in an assignment because of this thread. It was a ChiliD tip, one that I knew already but that wasn't so concrete in my mind as to be automatic, apparently. It was the plural "s" with just an apostrophe afterwards thing.

Glad I could be of SOME help. :o

(See? I'm not ALWAYS surly :laugh: )

amber

05-22-2006, 01:20 PM

Glad I could be of SOME help. :o

(See? I'm not ALWAYS surly :laugh: )

I know. I was just jealous and wanted more of happy fun ChiliD. :p
Just giving you a hard time. Besides, we hardly ever talk about the same things anyway, so I'm not much affected if you are surly. I read your posts, though, I like them. :wavey:

cliffdweller

05-22-2006, 01:34 PM

It's "got to". ;).

:lol:

:laugh: touche ;)

DrummerDeanna

05-22-2006, 01:57 PM

Anyone else live in a place where people say, "sangwich" instead of sandwich?

That makes me want to put sharp things in my eye. Or in the eye of a person who says sangwich.

cliffdweller

05-22-2006, 02:01 PM

Anyone else live in a place where people say, "sangwich" instead of sandwich?

:laugh:

No, but someone said "nafkin" instead of napkin to me the other day. What's so funny is that they thought that was the correct useage. :laugh: Oh, and another friend of mine says "earf" instead of "earth" and thinks that's correct too! I corrected him the other day because it made my ears bleed a little to hear it, and frankly, I'm sick of hearing him say "earf" all the time---it's f*cking annoying :rolleyes:. Well, he got mad at me for correcting him! It was as if he had never seen or heard the word "earth" before. I swear, it was weird :shocked:.

Okay David, your thread isn't that boring after all :)

Johnny Stew

05-22-2006, 02:04 PM

Anyone else live in a place where people say, "sangwich" instead of sandwich?:laugh: I do!

My brother and uncle say it, with their tongues firmly planted in their cheeks. But there are folks around here who don't mispronounce it intentionally.

Jyqm

05-22-2006, 02:04 PM

Anyone else live in a place where people say, "sangwich" instead of sandwich?

You're both wrong.

It's "sammich."

cliffdweller

05-22-2006, 02:07 PM

It's "sammich."

Now that I say!

amber

05-22-2006, 02:07 PM

You're both wrong.

It's "sammich."

has someone already mentioned "woof"? As in, "I heard a woof howling last night! I hope it didn't get in the chickens!"

hate.so.much.

I say sammich too, for fun. It makes the sandwich seem more light, carefree, and flirtatious.

cliffdweller

05-22-2006, 02:08 PM

It makes the sandwich seem more light, carefree, and flirtatious.

...and tasty, don't forget tasty...

JazmenFlowers

05-22-2006, 02:08 PM

living in the South there are a ton of "sayings" that just get under my skin. y'all (I say this a lot), over yonder, holler. a couple of the worst:

ask becomes aks.

about to become fixing to.

when I catch myself saying fixing to, I want to scream and I immediately recognize that I said it and move on. :laugh:

cliffdweller

05-22-2006, 02:15 PM

when I catch myself saying fixing to, I want to scream and I immediately recognize that I said it and move on. :laugh:

:laugh: Yeah, it grates. So does aks. I mean, what is that? If someone says they are going to aks me, it sounds like "axe" me and well, that terrifies me. Please don't "axe" me anything! :laugh:

David

05-22-2006, 02:17 PM

Okay David, your thread isn't that boring after all :)The thread's cool, but my posts are boring!

chiliD

05-22-2006, 02:18 PM

You're both wrong.

It's "sammich."

I'll use EITHER "sammich" or (one I got from my dad) "sangVich".

The thread's cool, but my posts are boring!

"Insanity" is never "boring", David. :] :thumbsup:

:laugh: Yeah, it grates. So does aks. I mean, what is that? If someone says they are going to aks me, it sounds like "axe" me and well, that terrifies me. Please don't "axe" me anything! :laugh:

Don't be racist. Some people speak in "Ebonics", that's just a fact. ;)

Johnny Stew

05-22-2006, 02:22 PM

has someone already mentioned "woof"?My brother pointed out to me a while back that I do this. I can't get that "L" in there. For some unknown reason, I can't fit it in there between the "woh" and "eff" sounds without really concentrating. It's embarrassing. :o

David

05-22-2006, 02:26 PM

"kudos" = often misused as a plural

But it's a singular that means "praise." Don't mistake the "s" at the end for an English inflected plural (like "bees").

Use it as a singular, or better yet don't use it at all. Best to avoid it altogether.

cliffdweller

05-22-2006, 02:27 PM

JohnnyStew, your post reminds me... my husband, being the true West Texan that he is, tends to mid-vowel his words sometimes like for instance, when he says "pale" it comes out sounding like "pell" and for "email" it sounds like "emell." It's kinda cute to me, but he hates it when I draw attention to it.

skcin

05-22-2006, 02:30 PM

Oh, and another friend of mine says "earf" instead of "earth" and thinks that's correct too! I corrected him the other day because it made my ears bleed a little to hear it, and frankly, I'm sick of hearing him say "earf" all the time---it's f*cking annoying :rolleyes:. Well, he got mad at me for correcting him! It was as if he had never seen or heard the word "earth" before. I swear, it was weird :shocked:.

"Go Cliffy, it's your birfday, go Cliffy, it's earfday..."

I hate that too. :(

cliffdweller

05-22-2006, 02:36 PM

"Go Cliffy, it's your birfday, go Cliffy, it's earfday..."

I hate that too. :(

:laugh: "earfday" :laugh:

amber

05-22-2006, 10:45 PM

...and tasty, don't forget tasty...

Yes, because there's an "mmmm" in the middle! Good call!

"Go Cliffy, it's your birfday, go Cliffy, it's earfday..."

:laugh: :laugh:

Hey Stew - When you sing to OSOTM, does it sound like this? "When you cry wooof! Waance to often, when you cry woof!, noI, won't come knocking, when you cry woof! I won't heah you, anymore."

:laugh:

Well (she said), if it doesn't, I'm now going to sing it that way. Except I'm going to say "woof!" like a dog would.

Yes, it's endlessly amusing inside here. My mind. :shocked:

carrie721

05-22-2006, 10:52 PM

Don't be racist. Some people speak in "Ebonics", that's just a fact. ;)

OOH don't get me started. i wrote a paper about ebonics last semester.

amber

05-22-2006, 11:04 PM

OOH don't get me started. i wrote a paper about ebonics last semester.
uh...are you for or against it? I just call it bad grammar, but at the same time I also recognize it's cultural significance,(sp) etc. etc. all the pc stuff. I learned that stuff, I just still think of it as bad grammar. Except the made up words that have no real relation to English words (I can't think of any at the moment, but I'm sure there are some). I just think of those as made up words, which is cool.

BTFLCHLD

05-22-2006, 11:16 PM

I say sammich too, for fun. It makes the sandwich seem more light, carefree, and flirtatious. Bet you say that to all the hobos! :xoxo:

carrie721

05-22-2006, 11:20 PM

uh...are you for or against it? I just call it bad grammar, but at the same time I also recognize it's cultural significance,(sp) etc. etc. all the pc stuff. I learned that stuff, I just still think of it as bad grammar. Except the made up words that have no real relation to English words (I can't think of any at the moment, but I'm sure there are some). I just think of those as made up words, which is cool.

well, here's the thing. "standard" english is just a dialect of english, and so is black vernacular english; they're equally valid. it's all about power: who has power in our society? white people. so black english is deemed less valid because it follows a different set of rules than "standard" english.

and what really makes a grammar legit is consistency, and if you analyze BVE discourse, you find that their rules of phonology and syntax are consistent and predictable, just different from standard english.

unfortunately, speaking perfect BVE doesn't really get you anywhere, so we need to come up with some system of instruction to teach standard english to inner city kids as a second language. a couple programs have been enacted in the oakland and la school districts with very little success because of limited funding and participation of the involved teachers. it's a shame because similar studies have been done in sweden & norway with great success because of better planning and methodology.

so to answer your question, i'm neither for it nor against it, but i respect it as a valid dialect.

i really wish my school offered more linguistics classes because this **** is TOTALLY my passion.

Johnny Stew

05-23-2006, 12:23 AM

Hey Stew - When you sing to OSOTM, does it sound like this? "When you cry wooof! Waance to often, when you cry woof!, noI, won't come knocking, when you cry woof! I won't heah you, anymore.":laugh: :laugh:

Actually, when I'm singing a song with the word "wolf" in it ("Straight Back," "Cry Wolf," Heart's "The Wolf," and so forth), I sing the word correctly. I just can't say it correctly when speaking. Go figure. :o

amber

05-23-2006, 01:04 AM

. so black english is deemed less valid because it follows a different set of rules than "standard" english.

I think English should be standard, the same set of rules. Unless it is a totally different language - I thought ebonics was not a different language?
It's not just ebonics or black people that we try to make follow the standards. It's everyone.
And to that end, I agree with you that it is a shame the methods that worked well in Norway and Sweden didn't work here. Most education doesn't, if your school/area is poor. :rolleyes:
I didn't realize exactly that the rules of phonology and syntax are consistent. I also don't know what that sounds like, I wish I could see some examples. But is that what makes it technically a language? What other factors made it be classified....uh, however it is classified (as a language? I don't quite understand). In theory, I could make up a whole nonsense language that was nevertheless consistent within itself.
And is the point of the classification so that people won't call it bad grammar? What is the point? Does that mean we could start studying it in school as we do traditional foreign languages?
(I really don't know the answer to these questions, though maybe you did).

Interesting topic.
:wavey:

carrie721

05-23-2006, 02:40 AM

I think English should be standard, the same set of rules. Unless it is a totally different language - I thought ebonics was not a different language?
It's not just ebonics or black people that we try to make follow the standards. It's everyone.
And to that end, I agree with you that it is a shame the methods that worked well in Norway and Sweden didn't work here. Most education doesn't, if your school/area is poor. :rolleyes:
I didn't realize exactly that the rules of phonology and syntax are consistent. I also don't know what that sounds like, I wish I could see some examples. But is that what makes it technically a language? What other factors made it be classified....uh, however it is classified (as a language? I don't quite understand). In theory, I could make up a whole nonsense language that was nevertheless consistent within itself.
And is the point of the classification so that people won't call it bad grammar? What is the point? Does that mean we could start studying it in school as we do traditional foreign languages?
(I really don't know the answer to these questions, though maybe you did).

Interesting topic.
:wavey:

what constitutes a "language" is actually a topic under intense debate, but it's really a useless argument. really, whether ebonics is a different "language" vs. just a dialect is a purely political debate. in linguistic terms, its rules of syntax consistently differ so much from "standard" english that it can be considered its own entity.

the thing about BVE is that it didn't originate from "bad" grammar; its roots go all the way back to the slave trade. it actually began as a pidgin (makeshift language used for commerce & trade) that was eventually creolized; many similarities can be seen between the syntax of BVE and several west african languages. i can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but i can provide some if you want; i just have to dig through my books.

it's important to be aware that BVE isn't just bad grammar because children who grow up speaking BVE in the home & in their culture are placed in classrooms where instruction takes place in standard english, and the differences really are so vast that the kids can't learn. and right now, the most common and accepted form of correction is to just fix mistakes as kids make them instead of showing them the correlations between the two dialects (ok, i know i'm totally rambling right now, but i hope that makes sense ...) in a broader context.

ok, well, an example of a consistent rule of pronunciation in BVE is how they pronounce "th." when it comes at the beginning of a word, it's always pronounced as a "d," and when it comes at the end of a word, it's always "f." always. also, most final consonants are dropped. an example of syntax ... well, in standard english we use "-ed" to indicate past tense, but in BVE the "-ed" is omitted and verb tense is inferred from context. much more important in BVE is the aspect of the verb - that is, whether an action is habitual or not. in BVE, the verb "be" indicates that an action is habitual, so "he be tired" means he is always tired, whereas "he tired" means he's tired right now. this is a great example of the differences between standard english grammar and BVE grammar because it has no parallel verb structure in standard english.

so yes, these differences are part of what make it a separate, legit entity from standard english. also very important is the fact that it came not from lazy english but from a mix of several languages, of which english is just one.

you could study BVE as a foreign language (in fact, a large portion of my linguistics class from last fall was dedicated to this). and when standard english is taught to BVE-speaking kids as foreign languages are taught in HS and college, results are remarkably positive. this is the direction we should be moving in, but there is very little support to recognize BVE as a valid dialect or language or whatever you want to call it.

you really could make up a new vocabulary, grammar, and phonology and call it a language. it would be meaningless unless you taught it to someone else, of course ... but yeah. cool, huh?

now it's time for me to go back to reading my book about mormons. :woohoo: ever read under the banner of heaven by jon krakauer?

elie

05-23-2006, 06:59 AM

Jyqm

05-23-2006, 07:42 AM

y'all (I say this a lot)

"Y'all" is a good word, it's a shame it's considered an "incorrect" regional dialect. Most other languages have a proper "y'all," there's no reason for English not to have one either.

Jyqm

05-23-2006, 07:47 AM

you really could make up a new vocabulary, grammar, and phonology and call it a language. it would be meaningless unless you taught it to someone else, of course ... but yeah. cool, huh?

Sci fi and fantacy nerds have been doing it for years! Elvish and Klingon are both "real" languages.

strandinthewind

05-23-2006, 08:06 AM

. . . Elvish and Klingon are both "real" languages.

Thank you!!!!

And, please, let's not forget the dark language of Mordor, which I suppose is a form of Elvish!

Jyqm

05-23-2006, 08:22 AM

Thank you!!!!

And, please, let's not forget the dark language of Mordor, which I suppose is a form of Elvish!

But of course. I meant not to be so remiss!

I bet more people in the world these days have a functional knowledge of Elvish or Klingon (and maybe both) than Esperanto.

strandinthewind

05-23-2006, 08:25 AM

But of course. I meant not to be so remiss!

I bet more people in the world these days have a functional knowledge of Elvish or Klingon (and maybe both) than Esperanto.

:eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto

Jyqm

05-23-2006, 09:04 AM

:eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto

"it has enjoyed continuous usage by a community estimated at between 100,000 and 2 million speakers"

In other words: "We got no idea, folks."

skcin

05-23-2006, 10:04 AM

Except the made up words that have no real relation to English words (I can't think of any at the moment, but I'm sure there are some). I just think of those as made up words, which is cool.

Fo shizzle my nizzle. :wavey:

skcin

05-23-2006, 10:13 AM

I have a question :)
Is it the same to say -for example- "the farmer's daughter" and "the daughter of the farmer"?
Is the latter perhaps more formal somehow? Are there cases where you just have to use the genitive?

It is the same, but the former is used much more than the latter in the U.S.

Newpaper articles are about the only instance I can think of, actually. "Sara Smith, the daughter of the farmer, tells us that he loved his farm dearly..." But you don't usually hear someone saying it that way in conversation.

cliffdweller

05-23-2006, 10:30 AM

what constitutes a "language" is actually a topic under intense debate, but it's really a useless argument. really, whether ebonics is a different "language" vs. just a dialect is a purely political debate. in linguistic terms, its rules of syntax consistently differ so much from "standard" english that it can be considered its own entity.

the thing about BVE is that it didn't originate from "bad" grammar; its roots go all the way back to the slave trade. it actually began as a pidgin (makeshift language used for commerce & trade) that was eventually creolized; many similarities can be seen between the syntax of BVE and several west african languages. i can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but i can provide some if you want; i just have to dig through my books.

it's important to be aware that BVE isn't just bad grammar because children who grow up speaking BVE in the home & in their culture are placed in classrooms where instruction takes place in standard english, and the differences really are so vast that the kids can't learn. and right now, the most common and accepted form of correction is to just fix mistakes as kids make them instead of showing them the correlations between the two dialects (ok, i know i'm totally rambling right now, but i hope that makes sense ...) in a broader context.

ok, well, an example of a consistent rule of pronunciation in BVE is how they pronounce "th." when it comes at the beginning of a word, it's always pronounced as a "d," and when it comes at the end of a word, it's always "f." always. also, most final consonants are dropped. an example of syntax ... well, in standard english we use "-ed" to indicate past tense, but in BVE the "-ed" is omitted and verb tense is inferred from context. much more important in BVE is the aspect of the verb - that is, whether an action is habitual or not. in BVE, the verb "be" indicates that an action is habitual, so "he be tired" means he is always tired, whereas "he tired" means he's tired right now. this is a great example of the differences between standard english grammar and BVE grammar because it has no parallel verb structure in standard english.

so yes, these differences are part of what make it a separate, legit entity from standard english. also very important is the fact that it came not from lazy english but from a mix of several languages, of which english is just one.

you could study BVE as a foreign language (in fact, a large portion of my linguistics class from last fall was dedicated to this). and when standard english is taught to BVE-speaking kids as foreign languages are taught in HS and college, results are remarkably positive. this is the direction we should be moving in, but there is very little support to recognize BVE as a valid dialect or language or whatever you want to call it.

you really could make up a new vocabulary, grammar, and phonology and call it a language. it would be meaningless unless you taught it to someone else, of course ... but yeah. cool, huh?

now it's time for me to go back to reading my book about mormons. :woohoo: ever read under the banner of heaven by jon krakauer?

Thanks for the Sociolinguistics 101 rundown. Very succinct and oh so "linguisticky."

Seriously, great synopsis :thumbsup:!

amber

05-23-2006, 11:01 AM

what constitutes a "language" is actually a topic under intense debate, but it's really a useless argument. really, whether ebonics is a different "language" vs. just a dialect is a purely political debate. in linguistic terms, its rules of syntax consistently differ so much from "standard" english that it can be considered its own entity.

the thing about BVE is that it didn't originate from "bad" grammar; its roots go all the way back to the slave trade. it actually began as a pidgin (makeshift language used for commerce & trade) that was eventually creolized; many similarities can be seen between the syntax of BVE and several west african languages. i can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but i can provide some if you want; i just have to dig through my books.

it's important to be aware that BVE isn't just bad grammar because children who grow up speaking BVE in the home & in their culture are placed in classrooms where instruction takes place in standard english, and the differences really are so vast that the kids can't learn. and right now, the most common and accepted form of correction is to just fix mistakes as kids make them instead of showing them the correlations between the two dialects (ok, i know i'm totally rambling right now, but i hope that makes sense ...) in a broader context.

ok, well, an example of a consistent rule of pronunciation in BVE is how they pronounce "th." when it comes at the beginning of a word, it's always pronounced as a "d," and when it comes at the end of a word, it's always "f." always. also, most final consonants are dropped. an example of syntax ... well, in standard english we use "-ed" to indicate past tense, but in BVE the "-ed" is omitted and verb tense is inferred from context. much more important in BVE is the aspect of the verb - that is, whether an action is habitual or not. in BVE, the verb "be" indicates that an action is habitual, so "he be tired" means he is always tired, whereas "he tired" means he's tired right now. this is a great example of the differences between standard english grammar and BVE grammar because it has no parallel verb structure in standard english.

so yes, these differences are part of what make it a separate, legit entity from standard english. also very important is the fact that it came not from lazy english but from a mix of several languages, of which english is just one.

you could study BVE as a foreign language (in fact, a large portion of my linguistics class from last fall was dedicated to this). and when standard english is taught to BVE-speaking kids as foreign languages are taught in HS and college, results are remarkably positive. this is the direction we should be moving in, but there is very little support to recognize BVE as a valid dialect or language or whatever you want to call it.

you really could make up a new vocabulary, grammar, and phonology and call it a language. it would be meaningless unless you taught it to someone else, of course ... but yeah. cool, huh?

now it's time for me to go back to reading my book about mormons. :woohoo: ever read under the banner of heaven by jon krakauer?

Thanks for the info. I knew about the history vaguely, but not in detail. I don't know that I've changed my mind about it's acceptance/not in relation to the standard, but I certainly know more about it now. it does suck that apparently kids "can't learn", but I find that a bit odd, as bilingual kids that start school catch up at an accelerated rate, their english skills improve quickly as well. And BVE doesn't strike me as being as different from English as Spanish is. Also, sadly, most young kids today watch a lot of TV before they even hit school, and BVE isn't a dominant language in the media, so I wouldn't think standard English would be so foreign as to make it very difficult to learn.
This definitely warrants more investigation (by me). My friend teaches ESL kindergartners and adults, maybe she has some insight. Her ESL kids are mainly Hispanic and Hmong, and I only remember she said her Hmong kids tend to excel faster, which is odd because Hmong isn't a latin based language, latin based languages have more commonality with English words. She believes it is cultural.
Anyway, thanks again!

David

05-23-2006, 11:34 AM

"it has enjoyed continuous usage by a community estimated at between 100,000 and 2 million speakers"This quote from Wikipedia brings us to another usage point:

"continuous" vs. "continual"

"continuous" means "occurring without interruption; unceasing"
"continual" means "frequently recurring"

The water in a river flows continuously (unless the river bed dries up completely).

But someone knocks continually on your door, or talks continually.

This distinction is a useful one to maintain, & usefulness is the name of the game (along with beauty, tradition, euphony).

Rickypt

05-23-2006, 12:12 PM

This quote from Stevie from the computer thread reminded me of another grammatical mistake often made:

"We are in the process of establishing a non-profit foundation for people like yourself to make donations to"

It should be "for people like you". The word "yourself" is reflexive. Reflexive pronouns need to match the subject of the sentence.

Example:

"You do it yourself" (correct)

"They gave a gift to my brother and myself" (incorrect)

"I did it myself" (correct)

carrie721

05-23-2006, 12:15 PM

carrie721

05-23-2006, 12:17 PM

Thanks for the info. I knew about the history vaguely, but not in detail. I don't know that I've changed my mind about it's acceptance/not in relation to the standard, but I certainly know more about it now. it does suck that apparently kids "can't learn", but I find that a bit odd, as bilingual kids that start school catch up at an accelerated rate, their english skills improve quickly as well. And BVE doesn't strike me as being as different from English as Spanish is. Also, sadly, most young kids today watch a lot of TV before they even hit school, and BVE isn't a dominant language in the media, so I wouldn't think standard English would be so foreign as to make it very difficult to learn.
This definitely warrants more investigation (by me). My friend teaches ESL kindergartners and adults, maybe she has some insight. Her ESL kids are mainly Hispanic and Hmong, and I only remember she said her Hmong kids tend to excel faster, which is odd because Hmong isn't a latin based language, latin based languages have more commonality with English words. She believes it is cultural.
Anyway, thanks again!

fair 'nuff :woohoo: sorry if that was too lecture-y, but i really get into that stuff. we need a "geeky" emoticon!

do your friend's ESL kids receive formal ESL instruction?

Jyqm

05-23-2006, 12:19 PM

Thanks for the info. I knew about the history vaguely, but not in detail. I don't know that I've changed my mind about it's acceptance/not in relation to the standard, but I certainly know more about it now.

I don't think that Carrie is arguing that BVE ought to be accepted as a legitimate alternative to standard English to be used in newspapers or business contracts or anything. Clearly the US needs to have one standard version of English with relatively strict rules that is used for government, business and educational purposes. What she is saying is that BVE needs to be accepted as different enough from standard English to merit having standard English taught as almost a "second language" to those children who have grown up hearing only BVE in their homes and neighborhoods, so that those kids can have a strong background in both "languages" and so that BVE can be considered an acceptable dialect for home and street use, not something that needs to be beaten out of those kids' consciousnesses entirely as "bad English." (Carrie, let me know if I'm totally off-base in interpreting what you said.)

Clearly BVE isn't entirely its own language apart from standard English. While much of the grammar (mainly verb conjugation, I think) and pronunciation may be different, both BVE and standard English use the same basic vocabulary (and after all, the E in BVE stands for "English"), and quite a bit of the grammar is the same. Still, it's different enough to warrant special attention for those kids who only have experiences with BVE at home.

A useful analogy here might be the example of Swiss German. "Schwyzerdütsch" is different enough from standard German (Hochdeutsch) that it would be all but unintelligible to me and to many native German speakers, although unlike BVE in relation to standard English, Schwyzerdütsch is linguistically and grammatically identical to Hochdeutsch. Nearly all German-speaking Swiss will speak Schwyzerdütsch to each other on a daily basis, but Hochdeutsch is used almost exclusively in schools, in the national government, in news broadcasts and in all writing. There's absolutely no prejudice against or stigma attached to Schwyzerdütsch, and it is completely accepted as the primary spoken "language" of German Swiss, but it's also accepted that Hochdeutsch is necessary for official business and education and such. I think this is the ideal situation that America needs to reach with BVE, and of course that will require a lot of work on the part of both educators/society at large and BVE speakers themselves.

David

05-23-2006, 12:22 PM

I think this is the ideal situation that America needs to reach with BVE, and of course that will require a lot of work on the part of both educators/society at large and BVE speakers themselves.The Bee Gees did their part with the song "Jive Talkin'" no?

carrie721

05-23-2006, 12:26 PM

I don't think that Carrie is arguing that BVE ought to be accepted as a legitimate alternative to standard English to be used in newspapers or business contracts or anything. Clearly the US needs to have one standard version of English with relatively strict rules that is used for government, business and educational purposes. What she is saying is that BVE needs to be accepted as different enough from standard English to merit having standard English taught as almost a "second language" to those children who have grown up hearing only BVE in their homes and neighborhoods, so that those kids can have a strong background in both "languages" and so that BVE can be considered an acceptable dialect for home and street use, not something that needs to be beaten out of those kids' consciousnesses entirely as "bad English." (Carrie, let me know if I'm totally off-base in interpreting what you said.)

Clearly BVE isn't entirely its own language apart from standard English. While much of the grammar (mainly verb conjugation, I think) and pronunciation may be different, both BVE and standard English use the same basic vocabulary (and after all, the E in BVE stands for "English"), and quite a bit of the grammar is the same. Still, it's different enough to warrant special attention for those kids who only have experiences with BVE at home.

A useful analogy here might be the example of Swiss German. "Schwyzerdütsch" is different enough from standard German (Hochdeutsch) that it would be all but unintelligible to me and to many native German speakers, although unlike BVE in relation to standard English, Schwyzerdütsch is linguistically and grammatically identical to Hochdeutsch. Nearly all German-speaking Swiss will speak Schwyzerdütsch to each other on a daily basis, but Hochdeutsch is used almost exclusively in schools, in the national government, in news broadcasts and in all writing. There's absolutely no prejudice against or stigma attached to Schwyzerdütsch, and it is completely accepted as the primary spoken "language" of German Swiss, but it's also accepted that Hochdeutsch is necessary for official business and education and such. I think this is the ideal situation that America needs to reach with BVE, and of course that will require a lot of work on the part of both educators/society at large and BVE speakers themselves.

right on, jyqm! you're right, in addition to the purely mechanical issues of speaking a different dialect than standard, there's also the stigma of speaking what many consider a lazy and stupid version of standard english.

cliffdweller

05-23-2006, 01:22 PM

The Bee Gees did their part with the song "Jive Talkin'" no?

( raises hand ) "I speak jive."

:laugh:

amber

05-23-2006, 03:59 PM

I don't think that Carrie is arguing that BVE ought to be accepted as a legitimate alternative to standard English

I didn't think she was. :shrug: I was just stating my opinion based on the info she gave me, and because I stated the same opinion last night with less information. Also because she gave some information that BVE's fate and applications and the ramifications have been considered and studied.

Which is nice, because it freed me up from reading your whole post.

Good Day.

amber

05-23-2006, 04:05 PM

fair 'nuff :woohoo: sorry if that was too lecture-y, but i really get into that stuff. we need a "geeky" emoticon!

do your friend's ESL kids receive formal ESL instruction?

Yes, and i actually meant to state that point. It's not totally bilingual, but my friend has a bilingual degree, and the techniques of the teaching style used are based on multicultural/bilingual teaching principles.
However, there are bilingual schools, one of which said friend's daughter attends - that school is different then then the one she teaches at, I mean it is a different type. The one she teaches at is less formally bilingual, has less money, while I think the one her daughter goes to is sort of...for non bilingual people to be bilingual, as well as for bilingual people. It has more money and all that. I don't think it is private, though - not sure.
You didn't sound lecturey :wavey:

David

05-26-2006, 03:38 PM

Next:

Many people use the phrase "self-deprecating" to mean sort of a good-natured disparagement of oneself, but the phrase should be "self-depreciating."

This is an extremely common usage blunder in English. Watch for it in your own writing & speech.

seeker007nmss

05-26-2006, 04:08 PM

, there's also the stigma of speaking what many consider a lazy and stupid version of standard english.

The odds are stacked enough against the inner city in this society and B.V.E. -Ebonics whatever you wish to call it, just adds more reasons for people to discriminate. You can analyze it all you want, but main stream society will NEVER accept it as a dialect, or respect it. Right or wrong - just the way it is. It tends to lend support to those who believe the worst of stereotypes. "See they all are lazy and stupid - they can't even speak correctly". Promoting it, even for the right reasons, is doing the speakers no kindness. JMO

carrie721

05-26-2006, 11:19 PM

The odds are stacked enough against the inner city in this society and B.V.E. -Ebonics whatever you wish to call it, just adds more reasons for people to discriminate. You can analyze it all you want, but main stream society will NEVER accept it as a dialect, or respect it. Right or wrong - just the way it is. It tends to lend support to those who believe the worst of stereotypes. "See they all are lazy and stupid - they can't even speak correctly". Promoting it, even for the right reasons, is doing the speakers no kindness. JMO

i never promoted it, and treating it as a legit dialect is not the same thing as telling kids it's appropriate in all contexts. i don't see how supplying people with unbiased information about bve (if that's what you meant by "promoting" it) is doing the speakers "no kindess."

carrie721

05-26-2006, 11:22 PM

Yes, and i actually meant to state that point. It's not totally bilingual, but my friend has a bilingual degree, and the techniques of the teaching style used are based on multicultural/bilingual teaching principles.
However, there are bilingual schools, one of which said friend's daughter attends - that school is different then then the one she teaches at, I mean it is a different type. The one she teaches at is less formally bilingual, has less money, while I think the one her daughter goes to is sort of...for non bilingual people to be bilingual, as well as for bilingual people. It has more money and all that. I don't think it is private, though - not sure.
You didn't sound lecturey :wavey:

if she uses bilingual techniques, then that would account for the difference. bve kids aren't taught standard english using bilingual techniques.