magiver … i’ll just shut up now 
Why so testy? I’m bringing up a valid point, that it is confusing for us to keep using words and their meanings not be fixed. You say as much above. Even if the meaning is consistent in your head, the words and relationships between them seem to differ based on the speaker. But even you–if you want to look back–agreed that a dialect is both equal to a language AND a subset of a language. See how that might be confusing to us non-linguists? I was just hoping for clarification so we DON"T CONTINUE crossing wires. What the hell is wrong with that?
And, yes, I’ve read the whole thread. That’s just a dumb, condescending comment, one you would be able to glean the answer to if YOU read trhe whole thread.
I truly wasn’t looking for a fight here, but looks like I found one anyway.
That all makes sense, although I’m not sure that I’d consider Cantonese a dialect any longer. I thing a dialect may (or may not) flower into a Language. It’s hard to thiink of a “tongue” spoken by so many people in a relatively defined area as being a dialect. But I see your point.
As I just pointed out, as with any debate, it would have been helpful to define basic terms. But I really didn’t see this coming. If we cold just agree, for the sake of the debate that SAE is the Language, and all dialects fall under that umbrella, that might be a good starting point. Or so I was thinking.
magellan … I had you confused with someone else, I’m sorry. And I don’t think I was being testy. If I ever said language=dialect, well, then I was being negligent and I’m sorry. It is a valid question to ask the difference, but, seriously, you can check yourself, I and many other people have said repeatedly there is no good definition.
Then what would British English be?
I don’t think you were confusing us, as the quotes in your post were, in fact, mine. As to your last point above, I agree. See what I just wrote to John Mace.
I did confuse you … I read magellan and thought magiver. Seriously, don’t call me a liar.
Just look at posts 380 and 381 …
Okay, maybe English is the umbrella language, and SAE and BE and Australian English, etc. fall under that. And under BE you’d have things like Cockney (?), and under SAE you’d have ebonics and others. However we define these relationships it would just help to define them, even if it’s just for the purpore of this debate.
But that would be linguistically incorrect. Standard English is not above AAE, it’s more like a sister, since AAE is not some offshoot of standard English, but a fellow dialect. There would be some “mother” English above them. The mother is not a spoken form, more of an ancestor or a theoretical thing… does that make sense?
WHAT? I din’t come near calling you a liar. If you took it that way I will apologize IN FULL. I certainly didn’t mean it that way. I’m just confused by your posts. You say you mixed us up, but I don’t see where you did that. I thought you were referring to your most recent post (# 378). If not what were you referring to.
I wasn’t calling you a liar. Honest.
On the screen I was talking to you, but in my head I was talking to magiver. And, not to be testy, you did, in an offhanded way, call me a liar in that you said I wasn’t telling the truth, but I accept your appology. Let’s move on.
Sorry, that came out much snider than I meant it. Speaking is so much easier than typing.
No problem. As you said, onward.
Only if by “English” you mean some abstract generalization. It’s not like there ever was one and only one form of English (or any language, for that matter). English has always had a number of dialects. Think of a bush with many branches and no main branch. Don’t think of a tree with a trunk and then a bunch of side branches-- language doesn’t work that way.
British English, if you mean all the varieties of English spoken in the United Kingdom, would be a set of dialects. If you mean the particular dialect considered by the British educational establishment et al, then that would be the particular prestige dialect (see link I provided earlier) for that geographical area.
But wouldn’t you be able to call the bush itself English?
I guess I don’t understand why all the bending over backwards to deflect a hierarchical relationship. From what I understand, we have Latin, and the five romance languages (Spanish, Italian, Portugeuse, French, and Romanian) fall under it, i.e., French is a subset or an offshoot of Latin. And what does it mean when one speaks of the Germanic languages? Doesn’t it mean that there are specific languages and/or dialects that fit under the umbrella of Germanic?
I feel like we’re beating a dead horse here, but it seems to defy logic.
Any firther help will be appreciated. Thanks.
You did not post anything on 7+ pages of the subject before you pounced on me in post 364. Your subsequent posts were a series of cites with no introduction of your opinion.
If I haven’t been clear enough on my position I’m against the expense of (finite) school funds on an untested program instituted on a large scale. I’ve recognized the need to breech the communication gap and I think any program along these lines should be on a trial bases until proven viable. Which was mentioned in one of your cites regarding opposition to such a program. The wrangling about dialect is secondary to the premise of the debate and the program in question.
I’m sorry for my earlier response. If you have something to say I’ll be interested in reading it but I’m not going to walk away from an insult.
And just for the record, my use of the word “glom” was meant as observational humor aimed at myself. I used a popular slang word in a debate where I support the use of Standard English in the school system. Apparently nobody got the irony of it.
Slang?
Main Entry: glom
Pronunciation: 'gläm
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): glommed; glom·ming
Etymology: alteration of English dialect glaum to grab
1 : TAKE, STEAL
2 : SEIZE, CATCH
- glom on to : to grab hold of : appropriate to oneself
First: You should “walk away” from the insult you tossed in a forum where the site rules prohibit personal insults. I did not insult you.
Second: I asked a question of you. Your response, for which you’ve apologized, was uncalled for, IMHO. I was interested in what training you’ve had in the subject under discussion because, ISTM, that you’d been dismissing another poster’s assertions and making your own assertions, equating yours (which some of us who happen to be linguists see as erroneous) as facts. So, essentially, I was wondering if you happened to be a linguist yourself.
Third: I provided links to rather short bits of information that really, again IMHO, did not require a lot of verbiage on my part to indicate where I stand on the issue under discussion.
Fourth: Given the Oakland School Board’s history of how they use tax money, it’s probably not a bad idea to be against–at least as a preliminary position–whatever said board floats.