LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.03 (05) [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 * 03 December 2005 * Volume 05
=======================================================================

From: Paul Finlow-Bates <wolf_thunder51 at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.12.03 (01) [E]


Heather, Paul, Sandy and All,

This topic of "right" v. "wrong" English has been running for centuries, and 
probably will for many more (see my earlier posts about Caxton and his 
search for a standard to print).  If I can chip in my own two penn'orth, one 
argument for maintaining a standard, at least in print, is "Think of the 
Foreigners!".  I know from my own German studies that the recent re-shuffle 
of German spelling has caused me some confusion.  If every German author, 
journalist or other writer wrote and spelled the language how they were 
feeling on the day, I wouldn't have a hope in hell of learning it.

Of course the standards will shift; we'd still be writing West Saxon if they 
didn't.  But to say that anyone therefore can write what ewe ththtrpjk 
dgfgfrr dds nmjus just because that's how I want to write it, rather defeats 
the object of writing in the first place.

Paul Finlow-Bates

----------

From: Luc Hellinckx <luc.hellinckx at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar"

Beste Gary,


I'm not sure that the change of _'ve_ to _of_ is going to (oops...gonna! 
*s*) happen as overnight as you would like it to happen.

>"And if the majority of people - because they are poorly
>taught their language ( and written/printed language has to be
>taught; it won't come naturally of itself) or they practise it
>so little as to never gain a mastery of it, then - yes - the
>next generation will be brought up to think that it is
>'correct' i.e. acceptable."
>
>As said it's already happened to a large extent. We can't reverse it.

Can't reverse it? Back in the sixties, almost every youngster was actively 
using a new spelling of Dutch that was very much based on phonetics. Even 
made sense...however: never caught on.
Maybe for the very same reason as why most people keep writing _enough_ 
instead of _enuff_, even though the word-picture has been reflecting 
phonetics very poorly for more than ?500? years now.

>There's the new trend amongst younsters to use a general tag
>'innit', regardless of the verb used before. This could be
>construed as laziness or ignorance. I personally would always
>use a tag based on the previous verb. But looking at it, the
>tag system in English is ridiculously complex, these
>youngsters are just streamlining the language. I should
>imagine that in 100 years this will be the only tag, and that
>it came from 'ain't it' will probably also have been
>forgotten.

Indeed, it will surely be forgotten by most of the people, but not by 
everybody I think. Some "gravediggers" (etymologists) will know the story.
Of course, I don't mind a language to evolve. Quite the contrary, it just 
shows how creative its speakers can be.
But, I do have the impression that linguistic phenomena that change rapidly 
or frequently, seldom last very long in the end. In the case of an auxiliary 
_of_, the next step may well be that the final _f_ will be omitted if the 
following word starts with a consonant (adding _a_: woulda, coulda, 
shoulda). What is then going to be the next stage? I woulda eaten???

By the way, would you write "I may of said so" or "You should of offed your 
royals"?

Kind greetings,

Luc Hellinckx 

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