LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.22 (05) [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)
=======================================================================

22 December 2005 * Volume 05
=======================================================================

From: Paul Tatum <ptatum at blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.22 (01) [E]

Hello everyone,

Sandy Fleming wrote:

> I really think you have to define your terms - there's not much meaning
> in what you've said here! What is "correct spoken English" to you? What
> exactly makes a thing "slang" or "colloquial"? By "colloquial" I'd
> understand "as spoken rather than written", so how can colloquial mean
> "not correct spoken English"?

Also what is correct English? It's horses for courses - if I'm speaking
to my friends, I use one variety of language, if I'm at an interview,
I'll speak more "correctly" i.e. appropriately.

When peoply say correct spoken English what they really seem to mean is
correct written English spoken aloud. There seems to be an idea that the
written language is primary, and that when we are speaking, we are
constantly 'aiming' at that standard. But I think that written language
is a pale abstraction of our language, probably selected by some grammar
book writer from "the usage of our Best Writers" in accordance with his
idea of a proper Latin framework - it has almost nothing to do with
spoken English at all. One day spoken English will be to standard
English what Latin is to French.

> Notice the from of your argument: "In correct spoken English, the above
> is *always* incorrect and sub-standard." How can it be incorrect if it's
> in correct English? Explain what you mean!
>
> Why is it that the proponents of "correct" and "accepted" English find
> it so difficult to put their points forward clearly? Why do they have to
> resort to imprecations such as "sub-standard" and "like spitting in the
> street"? I would sooner have someone arguing lucidly with "would of"s,
> "hafta's" and "summinks" than simply get slagged off in lieu of a
> discussion.
>
While I'm not particularly for or against standard English, there are
some advantages to a standard language: it facilitates communication
between speakers of dialects and provides a sense of linguistic identity
(Chinese being the big example, and I _do_ realize that this point may
be viewed negatively as well as positively). It also simplifies teaching
the language - there's the standard form and there's everything else.
As a writer, I can either wrtie standard which I know that nobody is
going to object to and will be understood by everybody, or I can write
as I speak and risk putting my writing out of the reach of the vast
majority of English speakers. I live on Tyneside, so this is probably
literally true.

Gan canny, cushty fowk, Paul Tatum

----------

From: Kevin and Cheryl Caldwell <kevin.caldwell1963 at verizon.net>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.21 (12) [E]

> From: Justin Renquist <justinrenquist at hotmail.com>
> Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.21 (08) [D/E]
>
> I disagree vehemently here. In my mind, it is optional and always a
> slang/colloquial speech pattern to say "haff to," hafta" or similar
> combinations with unvoiced "f" sound when meaning "have to."
>
> In correct spoken English, the above is *always* incorrect and sub-
> standard.
> The only correct combination is "have to" pronounced with a voiced "v"
> sound
> in all senses including must, have 2 etc.
>
> I do however agree that colloquially "haff to," hafta" are possible for
> "have to" but that "have 2" for "I have 2 of them" can never be unvoiced,
> even colloquially. I believe this is due to "two," and its vowel sound not
> being able to be shortened to a schwa sound as is possible with "to,"
> which
> in turn, contributes to the stress and intonation pattern of "have to"
> being
> shortened to "hafta" or haff to.
>
> I hope no one is suggesting that "haff" is anything other than
> colloquial/slang English!
>
> Justin

I don't know about others, but I was suggesting that "haff to" is the way I 
always pronounce it (and how I hear everyone else pronounce it). It may be 
colloquial, but I find it difficult to say it the other way. The voiced /v/ 
just sounds weird in that context, but it is normal in "have two" and "have 
too".

Oh, and "colloquial" doesn't mean "incorrect".

Kevin Caldwell 

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