LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.26 (10) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 26.SEP.2004 (10) * 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: Tom Maguire <jmaguire at pie.xtec.es>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.25 (06) [E]

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>Subject: "Grammar" [E

>For the record, "am I no?" /@m V no:/ is normal in Scots for "am I not?",
>and in many dialects there's also the perhaps less emphatic form "amn't I?"
>/'@m=n? V/.
>
>"Aren't I?" and "ain't I?" are never used.
>
>Sandy
>http://scotstext.org/
>
>----------
>
>From: Troy Sagrillo <meshwesh at bigfoot.com>
>Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.25 (08) [E]
>
>on 25.09.2004 11.15 PM, Tom <jmaguire at pie.xtec.es> wrote:
>
>>"Amn't I?" could be taught. It is the grammatically correct form. It's
>>certainly the one I teach.
>
>Is this actually used by any native speaker? In the USA at least that would
>most certainly be regarded as incorrect ("am I not?" is fine though, albeit
>stilted). Do native speakers of other varieties of English actually use
>this? Or rather, do other varieties of "Standard" English (British,
>Canadian, Australian, etc.) use this?
>
>I find it incredibly strange that this construction would be taught in an
>ESL class (no offence intended Tom!). I admit this may be due to the fact
>that I am a Yank, but I have lived in Canada and elsewhere long enough to
>have many friends from Great Britain and to be exposed to plenty of BBC. I
>can't recall hearing this used even once. It would have stuck out like a
>sore thumb.
>
>Curious,
>
>Troy

Well I'm not surprised that you never heard "... amn't I?" on the BBC
because it has tended to be a bastion of one dialect of English.

As regards the ESL class, think of asking students to fill in question
tags following the pattern "... isn't she? / aren't we?"   They will
automatically come up with  "... amn't I?". Then you complicate matters
by informing that "...aren't I?" also exists, confusingly. Finally, of
course, you show them the other dialectal possibility "... right?" and
lead them on to something of more import like creative writing or
learning to learn.

Regards,

Tom

--
Carpe Diem.
-Visit Nlp in Education  http://www.xtec.es/~jmaguire
-Join Nlp-Education  mailto:nlp-education-subscribe at yahoogroups.com

----------

From: Tom Maguire <jmaguire at pie.xtec.es>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.25 (06) [E]

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>

> <>For the record, "am I no?" /@m V no:/ is normal in Scots for "am I
> not?",
> and in many dialects there's also the perhaps less emphatic form
> "amn't I?"
> /'@m=n? V/.
>
> "Aren't I?" and "ain't I?" are never used.
>
> Sandy
> http://scotstext.org/
>
> ----------
>
> From: john feather <johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk>
> Subject: Grammar
>
> Tom wrote: ""Amn't I?" could be taught. It is the grammatically correct
> form. It's certainly the one I teach."
>
> I can't work out whether it's worse to teach students something which is
> dead wrong (as this is) or to justify doing so by saying it's
> "grammatically
> correct".
>
> John Feather CS johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk
>
> ----------

The phrase 'grammatically correct' is not a justification but underlines
the logical structure when following question tag forms, for example.

How do you decide what is "dead wrong"?

Regards,

Tom

--
Carpe Diem.
-Visit Nlp in Education  http://www.xtec.es/~jmaguire
-Join Nlp-Education  mailto:nlp-education-subscribe at yahoogroups.com

----------

From: Uilleam Òg mhic Sheumais <goidel.glas at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.25 (06) [E]

Latha math, Lowlandes;

Ron, you asked about the prevalence of reflexive forms in the United
States. I know that in the South, as you've said, the form is
extremely widespread. You don't hear it too much up in New England,
though I'll venture that in more rural parts it may well turn up. If
someone were to use it here, and weren't from the South, I think it'd
be taken as an affectation.

Beannachdan,
Uilleam Òg mhic Sheumais

----------

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

Thanks a lot for your response (above), Uilleam.

I know that this device is used in most parts of the South, especially in
the more rural parts, which is why it is associated with lack of
"sophistication," with "cowboy" and "hillbillie" talk.  However, from a
purely linguistic point of view it looks like this is a rather
"sophisticated" little device which, like in other Germanic varieties,
allows you, by means of objective pronouns, to differentiate between
benefitting yourself and benefitting someone else, or expressing it in a
non-specific way; e.g.,

Non-specific:
(1) I'll go and get some cookies.

Specific:
(2) I'll go and get me some cookies.
(3) I'll go and get you some cookies.
(4) I'll go and get him some cookies.
(5) I'll go and get us some cookies.
(6) I'll go and get them some cookies.

It seems that 1, 3, 4 and 6 are acceptable in "good" English.  Is 5 all
right?  I take it "I'll go and get some cookies for us" would be preferred.

1 could also serve as non-specific for all of them.  You may have a hard
time expressing 2 specifically in an "elegant" way, would probably just use
1, would not normally have the option of rephrasing it as *"I'll go and get
some cookies for me," while you could say "I'll go and get some cookies for
you," I'll go and get some cookies for them," etc.

So, the first person self-benefit forms make the inherent system more
consistent:

(2) I'll go and get me some cookies.
(7) We'll go and get us some cookies.

But can you say the following?

(8) You'll go and get you some cookies.
(9) He'll go and get him some cookies.
(10) They'll go and get them some cookies.

I have a hunch they are all right, at least in some dialects.  However, I
feel that 9 and 10 are ambiguous or could each denote different
beneficiaries:

(9) He'll go and get him some cookies.
(e.g., Billie will go and get Bob some cookies)

(10) They'll go and get them some cookies.
(e.g., The parents will go and get the kids some cookies.)

To express self-benefit, I suspect you would have to make it clearly
reflexive:

(11) He'll go and get himself some cookies.
(12) They'll go and get themselves some cookies.

So we also have:
(13) I'll go and get myself some cookies.
(14) You'll go and get yourself/yourselves some cookies.
(15) We'll go and get ourselves some cookies.

It seems to me that the reflexive and non-reflexive systems only overlap.

Any comments?

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

================================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.
======================================================================