LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.25 (06) [E]
Lowlands-L
lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Sun Sep 26 17:54:19 UTC 2004
======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 26.SEP.2004 (06) * 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
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 (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================
From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: "Grammar" [E]
> From: john feather <johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk>
> Subject: Grammar
>
> Tom wrote re "aren't I?":
> "I know that this form is taught in many ESL classes, probably throughout
> the world, .."
>
> Well, what else could be taught? We recently discussed the widespread but
> incorrect use of "isn't it?" in this situation. "Am I not?" is possible
but
> not something most people habitually say.
For the record, "am I no?" /@m V no:/ is normal in Scots for "am I not?",
and in many dialects there's also the perhaps less emphatic form "amn't I?"
/'@m=n? V/.
"Aren't I?" and "ain't I?" are never used.
Sandy
http://scotstext.org/
----------
From: yasuji <yasuji at amber.plala.or.jp>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.25 (06) [E]
From: Yasuji Waki
yasuji at amber.plala.or.jp
Re: Am not I? or Aren't I?
When I was a junoir high school student, I was taught that as a tag question
"am I not?" was not used, instead "aren't I?" was used. I am not an English
native speaker. I am not sure,
if what I have learned is correct or not. I know another expression "ain't
I?". Which is more often used "aren't I?" or "ain't I?". I don't use
English in my daily life, because I live in Japan and need not to use any
foreign language. I will be much pleased, if anyone of you kindly gives me
an answer.
Best regards,
Yasuji Waki fromJapan
----------
From: Troy Sagrillo <meshwesh at bigfoot.com>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.25 (08) [E]
on 25.09.2004 11.15 PM, Tom <jmaguire at pie.xtec.es> wrote:
> "Amn't I?" could be taught. It is the grammatically correct form. It's
> certainly the one I teach.
Is this actually used by any native speaker? In the USA at least that would
most certainly be regarded as incorrect ("am I not?" is fine though, albeit
stilted). Do native speakers of other varieties of English actually use
this? Or rather, do other varieties of "Standard" English (British,
Canadian, Australian, etc.) use this?
I find it incredibly strange that this construction would be taught in an
ESL class (no offence intended Tom!). I admit this may be due to the fact
that I am a Yank, but I have lived in Canada and elsewhere long enough to
have many friends from Great Britain and to be exposed to plenty of BBC. I
can't recall hearing this used even once. It would have stuck out like a
sore thumb.
Curious,
Troy
----------
From: john feather <johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Grammar
Ingmar wrote:
"I ain't a native speaker of English, but ain't it possible that "aren't I"
is a civilizated form of "ain't I" ?"
A big problem with this "solution" is still that "aren't" ain't fully
substitutable for "ain't" = "am not". Why should we be supercivilisamalated
when we say some things but not others?
Tom wrote: ""Amn't I?" could be taught. It is the grammatically correct
form. It's certainly the one I teach."
I can't work out whether it's worse to teach students something which is
dead wrong (as this is) or to justify doing so by saying it's "grammatically
correct".
John Feather CS johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk
----------
From: Tom <jmaguire at pie.xtec.es>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.25 (08) [E]
From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder
<ingmar.roerdinkholder at worldonline.nl>Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.25
(06) [E]
>I ain't a native speaker of English, but ain't it possible that "aren't I"
>is a civilizated form of "ain't I" ?
>And as "I ain't" would be derived from "I am not", "ain't I" would come
from
>"am n't I".
>"... ain't" can be the negative of ... am, ... are and ... is > ... am
not,
>... aren't, ... isn't,
>so "ain't ..." can be the interrogatibe negative of am ... not, are ...
>not, is ... not.
>
>But when people wanted to speak more civilized and replaced ain't by
>isn't/aren't, they also must have
>replaced hypercorrectly their "ain't I?" by "aren't I?"
>
>Ingmar
"Ain't " is a much more interesting, useful and 'linguistically correct'
form than either "amn't" or "aren't", in my opinion, because, as you
show, it regularises the negative forms of "are". "am" and "is".
Simplifying , as opposed to complicating, is surely a basic thrust of
langauge evolution.
I am all for recognising the merits of "ain't", though I don't use it
because it is uncommon in the English dialect I speak. For the same
reason I prefer "amn't" rather than "aren't".
I don't think any one of the 3 forms is the most civilised.
Regards,
Tom [MAGUIRE]
--
Carpe Diem.
-Visit Nlp in Education http://www.xtec.es/~jmaguire
-Join Nlp-Education mailto:nlp-education-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
----------
From: Uilleam Òg mhic Sheumais <goidel.glas at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2004.09.25 (08) [E]
Latha math, Lowlanders;
Ingmar wrote:
> But when people wanted to speak more civilized and replaced ain't by
> isn't/aren't, they also must have
> replaced hypercorrectly their "ain't I?" by "aren't I?"
This theory is very plausible to me, Ingmar. The verb 'to be' and the
forms of 'I' seem to give people a lot of trouble - they either ignore
the rules or hypercorrect themselves. I think that this is very likely
the reason - unless someone can come up with something equally or more
likely?
Beannachdan,
Uilleam Òg mhic Sheumais
----------
From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Grammar
Folks,
I have been listening to quite a bit of "Southern talk" lately (i.e.,
American English dialects from Eastern Texas to the Carolinas) and was again
fascinated by the wide use of what seems like reflexive forms implying
action to one's own benefit or subjection; e.g.,
And then we add us some raisins.
I caught me a bad cold.
I wonder about the origin of this.
In Germanic, you find reflexive forms widely used, more rarely in English
and Scots, and in a more limited way (only with certainverbs) when
indicating one's own benefit or subjection.
For instance, in German and Lowlands Saxon (Low German) -- and I guess other
Continental West Germanic language varieties -- this occurs for example with
the words for 'to take' and any very verb indicating self-objection, such as
'to get (oneself) dressed' and 'to lay (oneself) down'; e.g.:
G: Ich nehme MIR einen Apfel.
LS: Ik neem MY 'n appel.
"I take MYSELF an apple."
G: Ich ziehe MICH an.
LS: Ik trek MY an.
"I get MYSELF dressed."
G. Ich kaufe MIR ein Buch.
LS: Ik köyp MY 'n bouk.
"I('ll) buy MYSELF a book."
vs
G. Ich kaufe DIR ein Buch.
LS: Ik köyp DY 'n bouk.
"I('ll) buy a book FOR YOU."
vs
G. Ich kaufe ein Buch.
LS: Ik köyp 'n bouk.
"I('ll) buy a book."
In some languages and language groups, the use of this sort of device is
rather important, for instance in the more conservative Altaic languages
(such as the Northern Tungusic and Eastern Turkic varieties), where you can
and in some cases pretty much must indicate whether an action is to your own
or someone else's benefit or suffering.
The closest we might come to this in Germanic may be in some varieties of
Eastern Yiddish, possibly due to German roots reinforced by Slavonic
influences (i.e., the wide use of reflexive forms in surrounding Slavonic
varieties). In most cases this involves the generalized pronoun זיך _zix_
[zIx] (e.g., German _sich_, LS _sik_, Dutch _zich_ 'it-/oneself', 'each
other'), used occasionally more widely than in related languages, indicating
action for self-benefit or performed of one's own accord.
I wonder how extensively this device is used in the said American English
dialects, if there are non-American English dialects that have related or
similar devices, and what the grammatical limitations of this are.
Thanks for thinking about it.
Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
================================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