LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.27 (03) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 27.SEP.2004 (03) * 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: Troy Sagrillo <meshwesh at bigfoot.com>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.26 (10) [E]

on 27.09.2004 1.13 AM, Lowlands-L wrote:

> 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.

That is true, but like it or not, it represents "Standard" British English
in many regards, at least in the sense that "amn't I?" is not regarded as
grammatically correct. If this were a matter of discussing grammar of
various "non-standard" dialects where it may or may not be used, fine, but I
can't understand how this would help ESL students at all.

But then again, I am not an ESL teacher but a N2T student :-) To each their
own!

Best,

Troy

----------

From: Global Moose Translations <globalmoose at t-online.de>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.26 (10) [E]

Tom wrote:
>"Amn't I?" could be taught. It is the grammatically correct form. It's
>certainly the one I teach.

Tom, I think you only do this for the sadistic pleasure to watch your
hapless victims try and pronounce that mouthful. Em and I? Emmental? Amno
tie? Yeah, right.

According to this logic, it would also be grammatically correct to say "are
youn't?", because "aren't you" is an abbreviation of "are not you?", which
no-one could claim to be correct English. Same goes for "have theyn't", "can
shen't", and, of course, "do youn't". Now THAT is all grammatically correct,
don't you agree? :-)

Gabriele Kahn

----------

From: john feather <johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Grammar

Ron wrote:

>(5) I'll go and get us some cookies.
>Is 5 all right?  I take it "I'll go and get some cookies for us" would be
preferred.<

I think 5 is fine. Is the alternative perhaps a little old-fashioned?

It would certainly be possible to say to a dieting friend: "I'll go and get
some cookies for me and some grated carrot for you."

I would take 2, 9 and 10 to be Americanisms, even if they aren't, because
they fit a pattern which I identify as American.

Of course, following Tom's model you should just stick to one format because
it would save time.

I don't think there's any point in my trying to define for Tom what "dead
wrong" means. Since the vast majority of native British (and apparently
American) English speakers would never use "amn't I?" and I believe would
have to pause to think about what it meant if they heard it that's wrong
enough for me. I can't remember _ever_ hearing it so BBC policies are of
doubtful relevance.

It is always possible to attempt to deflect criticism of oneself by
attacking the BBC. Both major parties in the UK do it regularly. To be fair
to the version of the BBC which most people abroad will hear, there is an
emphasis on the World Service on a fairly standard pronunciation. I think I
read somewhere that that was what the world-wide audience wanted. There is
no purpose from their point of view in making learning more difficult or
teaching them things they'll never say. Domestically the BBC of course uses
something resembling a single "dialect" most of the time in its national
broadcasting because that's the only thing everyone understands. As regards
accents it has become much more "liberal" in recent years. Try listening to
the kids' programmes on the BBC website (eg the "Toe" shows 3-6 pm every day
on BBC7).

John Feather johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

----------

From: john feather <johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: GRammar

Ron:

Of course there's "I'm gonna get me a gun" where the intended action implies
a disbenefit for someone else.

BTW _New Scientist_ last month mentioned a site called
www.fuckinggoogleit.com for use when people ask questions without bothering
to find out for themselves first. What is the grammatical term for the
f****** word in this situation? I searched but couldn't find out.

John Feather CS johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

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