LL-L "Language varieties" 2005.11.30 (13) [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)
=======================================================================

   L O W L A N D S - L * 30 November 2005 * Volume 13
=======================================================================

From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.11.30 (03) [E]

What about "No milk today..." in that old song, ungrammatical too? ;-)
Ingmar

heather rendall wrote:
>><<Let me give you an example. "Today no kiss" is obviously not a
>well-formed English sentence, although I dislike the word
>"ungrammatical">>
>
>This is an example of chunks language; and chunks learning is an important
>step in learning all languages - whether mother tongue or foreign. We all
>go through it - some slower than others. It is not that it is
>ungrammatical;  it is a pre-grammatical form - one in which sequence is
all
>and ideas are invariable. An essential pre-cursor to the normal sentence
>structure of whichever language it is to develop into.

----------

From: Tom Mc Rae <t.mcrae at uq.net.au>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.11.30 (07) [E]


On 01/12/2005, at 6:04 AM, Jacqueline Bungenberg de Jong 
<Dutchmatters at comcast.net> wrote:
  Yes languagues are always developing; new words are added and gradual

  grammatical shifts occur, but "would of"? In my book that is about as

  uncouth as "Me and John" and spitting in the street. So call me an old

  fogey.

Here is another Old Fogey to support your views Jacqueline.


Regards

Tom Mc Rae

Brisbane Australia

Oh Wad Some Power the Giftie Gie Us

Tae See Oorsel's as Ithers See Us

Robert Burns

----------

From: Gary Taylor <gary_taylor_98 at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L Grammar


Hi Jacqueline

You wrote "I wonder if I would feel the same way if
the change was
generated
by the "educated" segment of the population rather
than by an ignorant
youth
who would like to shock his parents."

Are you somehow equating education with the way one
speaks??? And thereby implying that all educated
people should speak a 'standardised' version of their
language to show their level of education? Did you
just drop out of 1800's?

Sorry I don't usually get easily wound up, but these
sort of comments are the ones which show ignorance and
blatant snobbery.

There are many people who come from working class
backgrounds, have received excellent educations,
excelling in their areas of expertise and still speak
non-standard language.

I personally SAY 'could of', as in the phrase "well,I
could of" - there's a definite 'o' sound. And no, I
wouldn't be corrected by my parents for saying this,
as I've caught them saying it as well, and they're
both in their late sixties. Why shouldn't I write it
this way? It feels natural to me, whereas saying
'could have' seems forced, although I realise there
are poeple who say this, who are welcome to write this
too. I'm glad there are certain newspapers that are
forward thinking enough to realise that language is
living and changing, and not set in stone.

Oh and I say 'Me and John'/'John and me' too, however
I don't spit in the streets.

Gary

http://hometown.aol.com/taylor16471/myhomepage/index.html

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