Nobel Prize for Archaeological Grammar

[Laurence Urdang]

Ron---
  Sorry I wasn't clear.
  I DO want to call incorrect grammar "hypercorrect."  In an earlier email, which disappeared, I said that the definition of "hypercorrect" is 'wrong.'
  Larry

ronbutters at AOL.COM wrote:
  ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender: American Dialect Society
Poster: ronbutters at AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize for Archaeological Grammar
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Larry U, you need to elaborate-ii just don't understand what you are asserting. If HYPERCORRECTION is indeed the solecisms that speakers utter in response to social pressure, & if speakers utter "He gave it to Tom and I" in response to su0h social pressure, then why don't you want to call their responses "hyper correction"?

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Laurence Urdang

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:39:05
To:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADS-L] Nobel Prize for Archaeological Grammar


Of course it is, Ron. See my reply.
Larry

ronbutters at AOL.COM wrote:
---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender: American Dialect Society
Poster: ronbutters at AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize for Archaeological Grammar
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But isn't this exactly what the word HYPERCORRECTION means? What is YOUR definition, Larry?

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Laurence Urdang

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:43:16
To:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: [ADS-L] Nobel Prize for Archaeological Grammar


My remark about hypercorrectness was not aimed at sophisticated observers like Horn, and all I meant was that some commentators regard the change of "He gave it to Tom and me" to "He gave it to Tom and I" as hypercorrection, when it is nothing more than correction. It is almost as if some grammar policeman instructed younger speakers that if they were going to say "me," they ought to change it to "I" in order to play it safe and speak "correctly." I have no statistics, but I'd guess that the "I" substitution occurs more frequently (or only?) when there is a compound object: I have never heard, "Give it to I," "It belongs to I," etc., though, of course, anything is possible.
Grammatically, of course, there is nothing "wrong" about putting Tom after me: that is usually a mere matter of politeness, which children are not longer exposed to---let alone taught---these days.
L. Urdang

Laurence Horn wrote:
---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender: American Dialect Society
Poster: Laurence Horn
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize for Archaeological Grammar
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At 6:49 AM -0700 8/22/07, Laurence Urdang wrote:
>Of course dived is "far older" than "dove": the verb dive is what is
>called a "weak" verb (amongst those who know anything about general
>or comparative linguistics), hence does not change internally but
>adds the "weak" marker of the past, namely, "-d," "-ed," or some
>other dental sound.
> I am getting very tired of those who label "correct" as
>"hypercorrect" as if there were (that's a contrary-to-fact
>subjunctive, folks) some stigma attached to being correct.

I don't understand this objection. The only way I've seen
"hypercorrection" used is as applied to forms that are not normally
taken to be "correct" at all, such as (from our recent discussion)
"Give it to Tom and I". It's not that there's a stigma associated
withe being "correct" (even assuming prescriptivist norms), but that
the _motivation_ for using such forms (as opposed to "Me and Tom gave
it to you", which is neither "correct" nor "hypercorrect") is the
speaker's worry that the form that would normally have been chosen
(e.g. "Give it to Tom and me/to me and Tom") is incorrect ('Don't say
"me and Tom", say "Tom and I"!') and that the unnatural or artificial
("Tom and I") form should be chosen instead. Similarly for
phonological examples (e.g. the inserted /r/ between vowels, e.g.
"the idear of it", in non-rhotic dialects.) Am I missing something?

LH

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org