LL-L "Grammar" 2003.02.27 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 27.FEB.2003 (04) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * admin at lowlands-l.net * Encoding: Unicode UTF-8
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm
Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archive: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
=======================================================================
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: Global Moose Translations <globalmoose at t-online.de>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2003.02.26 (04) [E]

Ron and all,

"lay me down (or doon)" is perfectly acceptable,  because the verb "lay"
needs an object, in this case "me". It's constructions like "I've been
laying around all weekend" that really get to me and make me want to ask: a
round of WHAT?

Jim's explanation for "use to" where you seem to hear a "d" sound" resulting
from the "t" that follows makes sense. Alas, just like with "could of" and
"would of", there is a sad explanation for these spellings: Many, many
people - perhaps eighty percent of a whole generation or two - have stopped
reading books altogether (or never started in the first place). That' s why
their spelling is phonetic at best - they haven't seen the correct forms
often enough to "automatically" remember them! I guess we have the boob tube
to thank for that.

Here's my heartfelt contribution for Orthography hell (gee, I had better
double-check my spelling in this contribution):
"The dog chased it's own tail."

No further comment...
Gabriele Kahn

----------

From: Ed Alexander <edsells at cogeco.ca>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2003.02.26 (12) [E]

At 04:31 PM 02/26/03 -0800, Ian James Parsley wrote:
>In Criostoir's defence (surely not!), actually there
>is a 'rule' behind the nominative use of 'me and my
>wife' versus 'me' alone in many non-standard English
>dialects. The 'rule' appears to be that the subjective
>pronominal form ('I', 'he', 'we' etc) is used *only if
>it stands alone as the subject*. Otherwise the
>objective form is used (even 'me and him' etc). This
>'rule' is applied almost without exception in Scots.

Oh, well, yes, but I suppose that's covered a bit in my comment about it
being a "class identifier", leastways in Canada, where the usage is common
in both Canadian and Newfoundland "indigenous" dialects, it would never be
taught as "correct", though obviously one would be acting rather superior
on the shop floor to say "My wife and I", or some kind of idiot for
correcting the foreman for using "Me and my wife".  However, I don't think
you'd find the President of any larger company using the former in the
presence of the Chairman of the Board.

At 04:31 PM 02/26/03 -0800,  Críostóir Ã" Ciardha wrote:
>I agree that _mi waaif en mie_ might sound a little odd to outsiders, but
>it's one of those aspects of Nottingham English that I can't readily
>explain. The converse _*mi waaif en aij_ is analysable as Nottingham
English
>but sounds alien, unreal, affected. Similarly, I would never say, _*mi
waaif
>en misen_ (my wife and myself) as that also sounds wrong, strange,
peculiar.

Same comments as above.  My question would be, is the local "dialect" used
at all levels of society, or are "native" speakers expected to use "better
English" as they achieve positions of higher responsibility?

Ed Alexander, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

----------

From: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2003.02.26 (12) [E]


Ian wrote:

"Of course, that is not to say I disagree with you, Ed.
Trying to tread carefully, I have to say that if I
submitted a text to an editor and it came back with
_judgment_ 'corrected' but _my wife and me_ as a
nominative left unchallenged I would be slightly
miffed!"

Steady on. I was careful to point out that the _mi waaif en mie_ was
Nottingham English rather than standard written English (hence the different
orthography). Of course I wouldn't write _my wife and me_ in a standard
English text, so Ian wouldn't encounter it as an editor.

In the context of this list where every person's spoken language is valid I
don't like these insinuations that Nottingham English constructions are
somehow 'bad English' or 'unacceptable aberrations'. On the contrary. They
are my native language. Please respect that.

Go raibh maith agat

Criostóir.

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