LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.29 (04) [A/D/E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 29.SEP.2004 (04) * 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: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: "Grammar" [E]

> From: john feather <johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk>
> Subject: Grammar
>
> I think "go and get" is more common in the UK and "go get" may be felt to
be
> an Americanism. "Try and" is common BrE as well. Language doesn't have to
> make sense (ie obey some notion of logic) as long as it conveys sense!
> Surely it's all these little oddities which make languages fun. (NB I
could
> have expressed this differently and more accurately but I wanted to use a
> singular verb where there should "logically" be a plural. A formation
which
> I still hesitate about, however, is "There's" = "There is" for "There
are".
> "I should of gone" is unacceptable.)

It seems to me significant that you don't explain why it's unacceptable. Of
course, the logical argument against it is obvious but as you so succintly
and usefully put it, "Language doesn't have to make sense as long as it
conveys sense". I think it is really only a matter of degree.

The use of "of" for certain usages of "have" has some good precedents. It
always reminds me of the American short story writer Sherwood Anderson, who
spent most of his life as a newspaper editor, yet in his fiction would use
"of" in the narrative (not just the dialogue). I guess he must have known
what he was doing: either he spoke or thought that way, or he wanted to
characterise his narrator as not too educated. The important thing is that
it doesn't cause any confusion semantically: the English still makes sense.

Soemthing I object to that we've seen on the list recently (not from you,
John, as far as I remember) is the description of parts of grammatical
paradigms as "logical" or "illogical". Grammatical structures are either
regular or irregular. Being irregular doesn't make them any less
grammatically correct in any way.

> BTW Big Bad Bryson says something like "We use the definite article
> differently in English. We say 'go to bed'. In other languages you have to
> say 'go to the bed'". So now you know.

Will you stop quoting Bryson?!! Surely he's the von Daniken of linguistics:
a person ends up stupider for having read one of his books. I know I did!

Sandy
http://scotstext.org/

----------

From: wim <wkv at home.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.28 (11) [A/E]

from wim verdoold  wkv at home.nl

HI  about  "loop"   used  as  "to do..."   in  dutch  that happens  with the
word  zitten  (to sit)   zit niet te zeuren   , ik zit te denken, hij zit te
wacheten   etc  etc...ik zit te lopen...(lol)      zit  doesn't actually
mean  you are  sitting  here  just  that you are  doing  what comes  next
...the same  can happen  with  the words  liggen  and  lopen  too in dutch.
loop niet te zeuren  ( don; t bother me)    lig niet te zeuren...etc..
So it must be somthing old  if it's also being used in afrikaans..

wim

----------

From: Bill Wigham <redbilly2 at earthlink.net>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.28 (06) [E]

LL-L Grammar
>>From Bill Wigham
Gentlemen & Ladies,
     There just might be a factor in operation here which has to do with
boredom.  The use of the word <and> in place of <to> may just be one of
those attempts to add an emphasis to what might otherwise be ignored.  I
hear it all the time from people who should know better but who, seemingly,
do not care to be bound to some set of grammatical rules.  There might be
something in operation here smacks of an attitude against authority in
general.
We are happy that the British are manning the bastions of formal English
language, but we like to have the option of changing it around to fit felt
needs.  One must not use four letter words to add emphasis all the time.  We
do not have a word, like the word <yo> in Japanese which acts as an
exclamation mark, so we butcher selectively the language to get attention.
Just my theory...
Bill
redbilly2 at earthlink.net
Westfield MA/USA

----------

From: Ruth & Mark Dreyer <mrdreyer at lantic.net>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.28 (11) [E]

Beste Elsie, Ron, Vrinde:

Subject: LL-L "Grammar"

Help my hier, Elsie.

Loop, Ron, is heel breër 'n konsep as maar net 'run' of 'hurry up &---'

> At first I had the theory that _loop_ ('run') here connotes something like
> "hurry up and ...".  Does it?  Perhaps originally?  Might it convey a
sense
> of urgency?

In teendeel. As mens 'run' wil vertaal is dit ieder 'hardloop'. Maar dit dra
wel die konsep van aksie. 'Beweeg, roer, gaan' nê? Mynsinsiens is die
betekenis nader aan 'n doelgerigte, gedeugte optrede, soos net 'n Noordwes
Kaaplander sal optree (Hulle's erger as Skotte).

Hoor nou die toepaslikke sinonieme in Engelse vertaling; 'course, march,
run, walk, gait, turn, trend, go, &c'.
Soos in;
In die loop van die dag - In the course of the day.
'n Dag se loop - A day's march.
Op die loop gaan - Run for it.
'n draaitjie loop - Take a walk.
Trippelloop - Canter; a horse's gait.
'n Ander loop neem - Take a different turn.
Dit loop nou rustiger - The trend is easier.
Loop maar - Go, then.
GROOT WOORDEBOEK (Vertalend) Kritzinger, Steyn, Schoonees en Cronje.
(Meestal)

(met omverskoningversoek) My inset:

> > Loop ga sit.
> > Ga loop sit.
Sit: Do!

> > Loop ry nou!  [also in Johannesburg]
Get going! (nie noodwendig 'n reis nie, maar enige tog, en met of sonder 'n
tuig).

> > Ons gaan nou loop ry dorp toe.
We shall now proceed townwards.

> > Loop gaan lê.
> > Gaan loop lê nou!
Lie! (soos aan 'n hond gerig).

> > Kinders, gaan loop haal die eiers uit die neste.
Kids, go now, & fetch the eggs out of the nests.

> This is where it get's weird:

> > Wat loop sit jy nou hier op my skoon lakens?
How dare you sit on my clean sheets?

> > Wat sit loop julle nou soontoe? Ons kon mos die kar gevat het!
Why must you walk thither? We could simply have gone by car!

> Does _loop_ here imply unexpected, unseemly or prohibited action?

No; coupled with 'sit' - instituted - in this context, it implies an action
carried out.

> And what about _sit_ here?:

> > Wat kom julle so stadig hier aangesit?
Why must you hang around all the time? (Hierie 'aangesit' is nader aan
'beset' in betekenis, - 'Besieged'.

Komplimente,
Mark

----------

From: Ruth & Mark Dreyer <mrdreyer at lantic.net>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.28 (11) [E]

Dear All,

Subject: LL-L "Grammar"

All this talk about correct & incorrect English strikes this outsider a
wonderfully silly. Does it take an Afrikaner here to see there are no rules
in English that another Englishman will not break?
I ducked a couple of smacks at school by showing precidents for my wayward
spelling & grammar, from the book, with what some English writers freely
wrote.
Your language has no rules - maybe guidelines.

This is the strength - & the weakness - of Modern English.

Yrs,
Mark

----------

From: Tom Maguire <jmaguire at pie.xtec.es>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.27 (03) [E]

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

>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

I see John Feather hasn't replied to the question I asked.

I also see that he has taken to making snide remarks about
simplification and out-of-context generalisations about deflecting
criticism. Is this an attempt to analyse what is being discussed or
polarise the discussion?

Sandy wrote:

>>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/
>
I understand that Sandy is saying that the unusual tag question form in
the discussion is part and parcel of a Lowlands dialect.

I also understand that it is a minor issue. What seems to me important
is that folks on a Lowlands discussion list is that contributers won't
tolerate unusual expressions used in a Lowlands dialect . I would ask,
again, for what reason?

Regards,

Tom

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

-------

From: Jo Thys <Jo.Thijs1 at pandora.be>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.28 (11) [A/E]

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

> BTW Big Bad Bryson says something like "We use the definite article
> differently in English. We say 'go to bed'. In other languages you have to
> say 'go to the bed'". So now you know.

john,

In het Nederlands is 'ga naar bed' de juiste uitdrukking. 'Ga naar het bed'
betekent zoiets als loop tot bij het bed.
Veel van zulke uitspraken over het unieke karakter van het Engels of andere
talen, kunnen met een simpel Nederlands voorbeeld weerlegd worden. Ik moet
vaak aan een anecdote van Shaw denken, waarbij een taalkundige hem vroeg of
hij wist dat in het Engels alleen 'sumac' en 'sugar' met 'su' gespeld
werden, maar als 'sju' werden uitgesproken. 'Sure", antwoordde hij.

Groeten,

Jo Thys.

----------

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

Sandy wrote:

>Sometimes a spurious "and" seems to get habitually infixed in a word:
"Whatanever" (whatever)<

I don't know in what sense "whatever" is meant here but is it possible that
this "an" is not "and" at all but "an" meaning "if"?

"If ifs an' ans/were pots and pans/there'd be no work for tinkers."

BTW I suppose everyone knows about the philosophical Irish tinker who said
"I tink, therefore I am."

The fine print: This is not a mockery of the wonderful Irish people but
simply a linguistic joke based on the well-known habit in some forms of
Irish English of replacing "th" with "t" and the fact that the word "tinker"
is more common in Ireland than in England. Nor is it an attack on the
marvellous travelling people who have contributed so much to the culture of
every country they have moved to and through. E&OE.

BTW2 Is there a name for imperative + pronoun in English and are there any
rules for it's use? I just heard on the radio "Don't you worry". (Curiously
the words were put in the mouth of a Frenchman - like that supercorrect
English used by Mexican bandits.) I remember that when I met this
alternative form in Classical Greek I thought it odd so perhaps it's rare in
English.

John Feather johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

The aim of progress is to make two plastic daffodils where one bloomed
before.

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