LL-L "Grammar" 2004.10.04 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 04.OCT.2004 (01) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Hugo Zweep <hugo.zweep at valuersillawarra.com.au>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.10.03 (13) [E]

Gabriele, Gary et al
>>From a supposedly egalitarian Australian perspective it would seem that
>"shall" has posh connotations in that it would once have been used by
>people imitating what they thought may have been a British way of speaking.
>If used at all it would be by remnants of that social group. Now that we
>Australians have all agreed we can be "mates" we say "I'll do that" or
>"we'll do that" and to my ear "shan't" has an air of petulance about it.

It least that is what it seems to my ears and as someone who was taught the
"correct" (neo British) way of speaking in the 1950s and who has seen the
gradual change to matey ockerism during the past 20 or so years. It is all
part of the trend to a more relaxed, open way of communicating and it is
probably better for that.

Now "ocker" - ockerism, ockerdom, ockerisation and even ockerina - is an
interesting word. First noted in about 1916 as a nickname (short for Oscar,
just as Australians shortened Barry to Bazza, Darren to Dazza and Sharon to
Shazza and so on) it was transformed in the 1960s in a satirical television
programme as a nickname for an uncouth Australian and gradually became a
badge for anyone who pushed an exaggerated even aggressive Australian
attitude which is supposed to brook no nonsense and be practical and down to
earth. Someone who would call a "spade" a "bloody shovel".

Hugo Zweep

----------

From: Leslie Decker <lekkermeisje at earthlink.net>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.10.03 (13) [E]

As an American, I have to confirm that I hardly ever hear the word 'shall.'
The only use I can think of for it is in suggestions : 'Shall we dance?'
Even then, though, to me it sounds stilted.  Most people I know have a
tendency to use 'should' in this case, but that could just be here in Texas.

Although I have heard of the will/shall rule Gabrielle and others have
talked about, it's no longer included in any of the textbooks that I taught
out of in four years in the Czech Republic.  Most of the books came from
England, though; I'm not sure what the Czech schoolbooks actually said,
though they tend to be a bit more conservative.

I once had to actually forbid a student to use 'shall' because he overused
it! He was a lawyer and his English was quite good, but he talked like a
legal document.  I told him that as far as I was concerned, in spoken
English, 'shall' could always be replaced by 'will,' 'should' or 'must.'  Of
course, I didn't correct him if he actually used 'shall' in an accepted way,
i.e. in a suggestion or an emphatic command (which is not used at all in my
dialect), but he at least started to think about which alternate word to use
when he spoke and he started to sound much more natural.

It's absolutely amazing to me the awkward, old-fashioned, and just plain
wrong forms that are taught in foreign language classrooms around the world!
My Czech-English dictionary had as one of its irregular verbs 'bespeak,'
which is of course a word I use in conversation at least three time a day!
;-) That is not to mention the fact that even if it were a common word, it's
not necessary to include it in such a list since the root is 'speak!'  In
addition, I'd like to strangle the person who first translated the Czech
word 'nějaký' as 'some.'  ;-)

Leslie Decker

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Grammar

Ahoj, Leslie!

It's great to hear from you again.

I think what you and others have been saying in this thread seems to point
to _nějaký_ problems in language teaching:

(1) simplification (for the sake of expediency)
(2) wanting to teach "good" language (which tends to be archaic)
(3) passing on outdated teaching material (instead of starting afresh)

Some of it has to do with laziness, and some of it has to do with the
continuation of a tradition. None of it serves the learner well, which
is why it is so important to have native or near-native speakers interact
with learners and disspelling those handed-down myths in the process.
 Fora -- oops! I mean "forums" -- like these have a role to play too, I
feel, though in our case on a multilingual level.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

P.S.:
> In addition, I'd like to strangle the person who first translated the
> Czech word
> 'nějaký' as 'some.'  ;-)

Similar thing with Upper Sorbian _někajki_ and _něchtó_, and Lower Sorbian
_někaki_ and _něcht_.

----------

From: Ruth & Mark Dreyer <mrdreyer at lantic.net>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.10.03 (09) [E]

Dear Gabriele, Ron, & All,

Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.10.03 (04) [E]

On the usages & abusages of "shall" & "will".

What is it about my antipodean English?
I was taught to use 'will' & 'won't' in the context of intent, as in, 'Will
you have another cup of tea?" & "I won't impose, but thank you!"
'Shall' & 'shan't' on the other hand apply in cases where will is not an
issue. "I shall have to go home early." & "You shan't, though!"
Only in the cases of 'I'd', 'you'd', 'they'd' & 'I'll, 'you'll', they'll'
does the distinction pass away.
"I'll be seeing you," "You'll have to try again," "They'll come tomorrow." &
"I'd like to be!" "you'd have to bend."
"They'd refuse."

Referring to a subsequent letter, I don't see that the falling away of any
of these forms rates as regularising. Useful information can't be
transmitted as effectively without one or the other, or consistent use of
each in context.
Mind you, perhaps I'm a dinosaurus. I regret the passing, for example of the
words 'hither' &  'thither' from English, such that 'here' & 'there' must
now stand in for both location & direction, & for clarity, you may find it
necessary rather to say 'In this direction' or 'in that place':
Sheeesh!
As for the difference between 'you' & 'ye' (Afrikaans 'jou' & 'jy') I shall
pass by in silence.

Yrs,
Mark

P.S. What's wrong with the sentence 'have I a dog?' or have I said too much?

================================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
  http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
======================================================================