LL-L "Grammar" 2005.05.08 (03) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 08.JUN.2005 (03) * 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 (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Ian Pollock <ispollock at shaw.ca>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.05.07 (05) [E]

> From: Gary Taylor <gary_taylor_98 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Grammar
>
> Hi all
>
> as far as I'm concerned let 'whom' die a death. I
> never use it, and I don't think the majority of Brits
> do either unless they're being particularly pedantic.
> It's the same thing as 'if I was' instead of 'if I
> were' and saying 'me and you' in all positions,
> including when it's the subject, instead of 'you and
> I'. It's purely due to the evils of proscriptivism
> that people say things like 'between you and I'. Let
> language live and breathe instead of trying to cage it
> into some kind of perceived 'correct' formula.
>
> Gary

It's true that prescriptivism is a bad and crippling thing, but
remember that one stupidity's opposite is another stupidity. Forms that
have traditionally been considered incorrect should be allowed to
flourish, but that doesn't mean that we should assume that anyone who
uses a more traditional form such as "If I were" is being pedantic or
putting on airs. I would say that in my dialect "if I were" and "if I
was" are both perfectly acceptable (I use both without thinking about
it) and "whom" is a fairly normal thing in certain circumstances. And
while I consider the double negative acceptable in principle, I think
using it in my dialect would indeed be putting on airs - just of a
different kind.
Incidentally, I have a pet theory that I'm going to watch for the next
few years that the who/whom pair is starting to alternate not on the
basis of grammar but rather because of euphony, conditioned among other
things by whether the following sound is a vowel or consonant. I could
be utterly wrong, but we'll see.
On the "between you and I" phenomenon:
Yes, this is bizarre indeed, but condemning the result of prescriptive
grammar is in a way prescriptive as well. Spanish uses a nominative
case form with "between" - "entre tú y yo" (rather than "tí" and "mí",
so why shouldn't English evolve that way?
While as a linguist I have a personal distaste for what people call
"good grammar", I do think that it's healthy if a language has a
tension between conservative and liberal tendencies.
-Ian Pollock

----------

From: Global Moose Translations <globalmoose at t-online.de>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.05.07 (07) [E]

> Ever since this topic cropped up here, I 've been coming across examples
> left and write.

Oh my, did I really right that?!

Gabriele Kahn

----------

From: Travis Bemann <tabemann at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.05.07 (07) [E]

> From: David Barrow <davidab at telefonica.net.pe>
> Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.05.07 (05) [E]
>
> My view is they insist on  subject after 'be' : 'it is I'  why don't
> they insist on the verb agreeing with the complement as it does in other
> languages: 'soy yo' =  it am I .

At least here in southeastern Wisconsin, and probably in most to all
of North American English today, in speech "to be" when being used
with two nouns, where neither is genitive case or is using a genitive
clitic, takes a nominative case noun and an accusative case noun, not
two nominative case nouns as prescriptivists seem to insist in this
particular case.  Even in formal writing, I myself would always use
one nominative case noun and one accusative noun in this case.  One
way or another, what prescriptivists say about this goes firmly
against actual usage here.

> Give them these two sentences and ask them which is correct and why
>
> I want  the  winner to be I
> I want the winner to be me

I would unequivocably use the latter rather than the former myself,
and I'd expect that most individuals native to this area would most
likely do the same.

----------

From: heather rendall <HeatherRendall at compuserve.com>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2005.05.07 (11) [E]

Message text written by INTERNET:lowlands-l at LOWLANDS-L.NET
>Just wanted to add to the discussion about the usage of _I_ and _me_ that
Western Flemish tends to say "Het is van ik" instead of "Het is van mij".

Kind greetings,

Luc Hellinckx<

How very intriguing. Any more exampls of ik being used with any other
prepositions?
Any other lanaguges nearby using the same construction?
How do people react to  "Het is van mij". if it is said?

Heather

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