LL-L "Language learning" 2005.12.01 (11) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 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
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.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 (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

01 December 2005 * Volume 11
=======================================================================

From: Gary Taylor <gary_taylor_98 at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L Language Learning

Hello Heather

"What else can it be?" (implying that change is
ignorance)

I know exactly that the majority of prescriptionist
grammarians would write "could've" instead of "could
of", I'm not ignorant to this fact, however I _do_ say
'of'. Why shouldn't I also use this in writing. There
is no law or academy saying how English should be
written. It changes the whole time. Accept the fact.

"It should be 've short for have and then the tense
being used  makes
sense."

In Romanian they have the verb 'a avea' with the full
verb meaning of 'to have', they also have a reduced
auxiliary based on the verb 'a avea' but much
shortened, which is accepted and grammatical, the full
'avea' verb is no longer grammatical as an auxiliary.
Yes this shortened form started from the verb 'a avea'
however it has changed. English seems to be going this
same route whether you like it or not.

"There is no possible meaning of 'of' or prior use of
'of' that could
give
it any historical authenticity or satisfactory
meaning."

So you still use the word 'silly' with the meaning
'blessed'? And you would still of course always wear
'a napron' instead of 'an apron'? And of course you
always write 'em' instead of 'them' as this is the
better Old English word as opposed to that horrible
foreign Scandinavian neologism... Need I say more?

"It is used instead of a homonym when people write
what they hear
instead of
what has meaning."

Yeah you're right that they write what they hear - why
not? If you read 'I could of done that', ok it irks
you, but you still understand completely what is meant
- indicating that it does indeed have meaning. I have
a pet hate of the new MacDonalds catchphrase 'I'm
loving it', you can 'love' something, but to be
'loving' something - that's another matter, and
conjures up whole other images in my mind. I don't
like it, but I have to accept that it's becoming
acceptible. Can't you also accept that there are
alternatives that don't fit into your way of thinking
but are nevertheless alternatives?

"And YES there are times when one can say that
something is right and
ssomething else is wrong! It is no reflection on a
person who says it."

Depends on whose viewpoint you're looking from most of
the time. What to one person is correct might not be
to someone else; as in this case. Just because _you_
and lots of other people think something's correct
does not mean that it is (unless you're God writing
with the pseudonym Heather, in which case I apologise
profusely and hope you can forgive me - that is if
you're actually there... But we won't open up that can
of worms).

"Unless ov cors u are gooing to follo that lyn of thort in which effrybody 
speeks and rites koreektly and never makes a mistake because no-one dare
mention the word 'wrong'."

Don't you mean 'rong'? As far as modes of speaking are
concerned there _can_ be no right or wrong. No two
people speak identically, which means that with the
exception of myself of course, everone else speaks
incorrectly (joke). With a language such as English
which has such a vast amount of world varieties, who's
to say that you should say 'at the weekend' instead of
'on the weekend' or 'airplane' instead of 'aeroplane'.
Who's to say there's not a variety of English where
'could of' is correct and 'could have' is
ungrammatical? - which is very close to my feeling of
the phrase.

I understand that as an English teacher you have to be
prescriptive to a certain extent, to the level that
students should be able to speak so that other English
speakers can understand them. However if a student
were taught 'could of' they would accept that as
grammatically correct - it might seem strange to them,
but then there are lots of things in English which are
no doubt strange to the non-native speaker. And if
they were to use 'could of' then they would be
understood by every native English speaker.

Can't you just accept that language changes, lots of
grammar in every language makes little sense when
looked at historically or synchronically, it's just
the way it's evolved. If you don't like it then you're
joined by a large swath of the population, but people
didn't like changes 100 years ago, or 200 or 500, but
they happened nevertheless. You'd be a lot happier if
you could just accept these - and no, changes aren't
always for the better, but they tend to happen anyway,
regardless of how much moaning we do about them.

Gary

http://hometown.aol.com/taylor16471/myhomepage/index.html 

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