LL-L "Grammar" 2003.02.27 (15) [E]

Lowlands-L admin at lowlands-l.net
Thu Feb 27 23:51:46 UTC 2003 

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 27.FEB.2003 (15) * 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: Ian James Parsley <parsleyij at yahoo.com>
Subject: Grammar

Gary and Dan,

I'm not being clear again - what I meant by 'personal
gripe' is something about *Standard English* that
strikes me as utterly illogical. I should have made
that clear.

Gabriele's original example of _didn't used to_ *is*
Standard British English (although I would advise any
writer just to avoid the construction altogether
because to many people it still doesn't 'sound right')
- it's just that she and I don't like it because we
both find it utterly illogical.

Likewise, my example of _he was stood there_ *is* now
Standard British English (although yes I agree, I
think it is most common in the north of England and
nonstandard speech) - wearing my editor hat I may give
it a dotted line (noting that it could be rephrased)
but I don't think I would have any right to 'correct'
it. It is, as you say, perfectly common speech - it's
just that I personally don't like it!

My point is that different people will have different
'gripes', but sometimes we just have to accept that
usage is usage, and indeed that language change is
language change (_lie_ and _lay_ *will* merge in
English, whether we like it or not!)...

Another thing about language is that it can bite back
if you're not careful! A bit like driving, it's easy
to criticize other people and be self-righteous, but
none of is (are?) perfect all of the time!

But yes, people who say 'pron*o*unciation' deserve no
sympathy at all... <mischievous grin>

=====
------------------
Ian James Parsley
www.ianjamesparsley.net
+44 (0)77 2095 1736
JOY - "Jesus, Others, You"

----------

From: Ian James Parsley <parsleyij at yahoo.com>
Subject: Grammar

Criostoir,

[You wrote]
I always used to write, "my wife and me" but caved in
recently after getting weary of being 'corrected' to
"my wife and I". I still say _mi waaif en mie_ when I
speak, though.

[I 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!"

[You wrote]
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.

[My reply]
Where did I insinuate any such thing?

I actually went to great lengths to explain the 'rule'
behind the construction - ie pointing out that it was
perfectly 'acceptable' to say 'my wife and me' without
necessarily meaning you say 'me' as a stand-alone
nominative.

As shown above, *you* were the one who mentioned
*writing* 'my wife and me'.

Criostoir, I must put it to you respectfully that
international lists such as this simply do not
function unless we leave our prejudices outside the
door. Your idea that I was somehow 'insinuating'
anything of the sort you suggest is utterly fanciful
and I can only assume you are taking what I write to
mean something completely different because of my
perceived background. You *must* base such comments on
what I *actually* write, nothing else!

As one who has spent years campaigning for the
promotion of local vernaculars right across the UK and
Ireland, I find the idea what I would suggest anything
at all is 'bad' or 'wrong English' quite insulting.
'Nonstandard' yes, 'bad' or 'wrong', no!

Beannachtaí

=====
------------------
Ian James Parsley
www.ianjamesparsley.net
+44 (0)77 2095 1736
JOY - "Jesus, Others, You"

----------

From: Ed Alexander <edsells at cogeco.ca>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2003.02.27 (12) [E]

At 12:33 PM 02/27/03 -0800, Sandy wrote:

  "Me and My wife went to the theatre" has been a normal
  form in English for centuries, and has never put anyone
  in danger of saying "Me went to the theatre."

  Conversely, people who are brought up to say "My wife
  and I went to the theatre" often make the hypercorrection
  "She came to the theatre with my wife and I". Again, this
  is without falling into the trap of saying "She came to
  the theatre with I."

So do many of the people who say "me and my wife" in the subjective
position.  I'm wondering what this has to do with it.


  It's a mistake to apply Latin grammar in English,
  and in English the most normal contruction is (as Ian
  pointed out) that the "me/her/him/them" forms (I won't
  say 'object forms' as, again, that's getting confused
  with Latin) are used when the pronoun is used in conjuction
  with other nouns or pronouns.

So, how would you then describe these forms, using "English grammar"?
Unfortunately, it appears that I've been under the illusion that I was using
English grammar rules, when all along I was really using Latin.  Strangely,
whatever you call the rules I've been taught, they are extremely similar to
those of all the other Germanic languages, regarding the use of "cases" in
the "subjective" or "objective" positions, and differ in greater degree from
those of Latin.

What if we apply Occam's Razor?  According to your system, we need a
convoluted system where it's correct to use the form "me" as a subject of a
sentence provided it is in conjunction with another noun or pronoun, in the
absence of which, one must use the form "I".

Anyway, this is far from what my question was, to which no one has hitherto
cared to respond, having thus far chosen to insinuate that I am suggesting
that dialectical variants are "wrong" or "shameful" or whatever.

I use these forms quite often myself, but vary their use depending upon my
audience, since I am a salesman, and need to speak on the same level as my
clients and not appear to speak up or down to them.  My wife is an English
teacher, and I honestly don't think it would be possible for the words, "Me
and my husband went ....." to pass her lips.  On the other hand, my running
buddies Gord (who has a factory job) and his wife and two boys have probably
never used the other structure.

So my question remains.  Is the use of one form or the other a class
identifier in other places?  Please do not continue to assume that this
questions represents a class or dialect prejudice on my part.


  While I'd say "me an my wife" is more normal in Scots
  than "my wife an me" (and "my wife an I" is almost never
  heard), I think I'll follow Ron's example and present a
  song that demonstrates the less usual form  :)

  THE laddies now laugh at my wifie and me,

Quite "correct" by anyone's grammar, as it is the object of the verb
"laugh".  Your point being?

Ed Alexander

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

More information about the LOWLANDS-L mailing list