Sure, fine, Izzardesque! I’m even willing to accept “Where my homies at?”
But can we at least keep our tenses? (Please, please!)
I could not understood why people will want to said “lay” instead of saiding “lie”!
I’ve also never heard “one and a thousand.” Do people really say this?
penny- ha, ha. we’re all laughing. i don’t believe anyone suggested we eliminate orthography or grammar.
ok, here we go. let’s start with the difference between “descriptivist” vs “prescriptivist” grammar, for those of us who have missed these threads in the past. I think it’ll help our little debate here. A precriptivist grammarian tells you what’s right and what’s wrong. Don’t use double negatives. Don’t split infinitives. Every sentence needs a subject and a verb. Etc, etc, etc. A descriptivist simply notes how people talk. Believe it or not, Ebonics, or Black Vernacular English, has a completely valid and natural grammar. Speakers of BVE follow sets of rules that can be codified just as strictly as the grammar of Standard English. I’ve never understood what the big deal with BVE was. I don’t believe anyone anywhere has ever said that BVE not be taught in conjunction with Standard English, but that’s another debate.
Prescriptivists argue there is a proper grammar, and that, from a linguistic standpoint, is bullshit. Yes, we need to codify rules in order to facillitate communication and ensure some consistency in the written word, but grammar does change with time, and it is worth acknowledging that change and letting go of old-fashioned rules which don’t reflect current usage. And, to be fair, that is happening. At least according to the Oxford Dictionary of Grammar, split infinitives are now OK. So is ending a sentence with a preposition. Although I’m not a huge fan of the double negative, I’m waiting for that one to get tossed, too. Does anyone really believe that when someone says “I ain’t got no money, honey” this means “I have money, honey.” If you have any experience with any other language, double negatives are probably required to state a negative. Polish, Hungarian, French, German - “I don’t have anything” is said as “I don’t have nothing.” The rule comes from some English language maven trying to apply mathemetical logic to grammar. It’s absurd. Just as the history of not splitting infinitives derives from grammarians basing English grammar on Latin (talk about apples and oranges) and deciding that since Latin doesn’t split infinitives, English shouldn’t. Do you know why? In Latin, infinitives are one word, so they can’t be split!
All I’m saying is it’s fine to codify grammar, but care must be taken to actually reflect the way people talk, and not base rules around nonsensical logic. If what somebody says is clear and understandable, what’s the problem? I would agree that in formal written English, we should be more conservative for sake of consitency, but rules such as the above should be thrown out the window. They don’t apply.
I forgot to bring the Mother Tongue book to the office, but there are several pages exclusively devoted to Bryson pointing out that many words and expressions that the British in the 1800s and 1900s shrugged away as “ugly Americanisms” were originally British coinages. (eg. trash, fall, had gotten, etc.)
they’re could be more better posts here, but the real reason is that americans speak righter than you other guys. aint no other reason that i can enunciate.
All I’m trying to say is that if grammar evolves according to current usage, does that mean that common spelling and grammatical errors will eventually be incorporated into the language? I agree that certain grammatical rules are redundant and of questionable origin in any case (in the words of Winston Churchill: “this is the kind of pedantry up with which I will not put”) but what about errors which arise from common misunderstanding regarding the meaning of certain words and tenses? For example, the use of the word “lay” instead of “lie”, or the failure to distinguish between “affect” and “effect”. Will these words eventually become interchangeable?
I’ve only seen “one and a thousand” once. It quite plainly originates from the similarity in the way the words “and” and “in” sound. The writer did not mean to say “one and a thousand”. It is similar to the way in which people have begun to write “could of” when they mean “could have”. That is my problem with this type of mistake - it is a mistake, and yet it can become common usage if enough people make it.
I personally believe that “affect” vs “effect” is a useful distinction, and should be preserved. “Could of” written as such is clearly an error and is actually “could’ve.” To me, that’s a spelling mistake more than a grammar mistake.
Certain other distinctions I won’t bother so much about. In my neighborhood, nobody seemed to ever use the verb “to lend.” It was always, “Hey, can you borrow me a buck?” OK, in all honesty, I don’t use that construction, and it drove me nuts for awhile, but it really isn’t that weird. In my other mother tongue, Polish, there is no distinction between those two words, and there’s no problem in understanding. If English as a whole decided to dispense with “lend,” I wouldn’t be bitching about it. And if “lay” and “lie” disappear, or one is replaced by the other, so be it. If we decide we can function without distinguishing between these tenses, so be it. I mean, we dispensed with the “you/thou” distinction. And with this, a whole class of conjugations disappered as well. “You are/Thou art,” “You have, Thou hast.” Do you miss these?
I believe that “thou” and “you” originally had different connotations, and have become redundant due to changing social dynamics. It would make sense that if the word “thou” were to disappear, all the verb forms which go along with it would disappear too.
It is true that we don’t absolutely need the different tenses of “lie”, but then we don’t absolutely need the different tenses of any word. I, for one, would like to keep them (although it looks like I’m the only one - apart from my faithful ally bmerton, of course).
Just to clarify, “thou” and “you” are the equivalent of “tu” and “vous” in French, or “du” and “Sie” in German. “Thou” was singular, familiar second person. “You” was either the second person formal singular or second person plural. Useful? Could be. But, yeah, you’re right, the changing social dynamic made them redunant. (and, yes, obviously if “thou” disappeared all the verb forms would, too.)
But that furthers my point. Language is a malleable, organic creature. Grammar and orthography change over time to suit the needs of the users. Language is not going downhill. We are not changing into an ignorant mass - no more so than we were two centuries ago. It’s just language changing. That’s it. For centuries the evolution of language has been looked upon as somehow a destructive force. Yet I do not honestly believe we have grown stupider over the centuries. We’ve adapted and have changed our language to suit our needs.
“To destroy the English language” has no meaning. The English language is how its speakers speak it.
You may certainly argue for a standard acrolect of English. Indeed, such a thing is certainly useful, which is why it exists. Nobody, I think, is arguing for writing bank statements in AAVE or having United Nations meetings translated into borinqueño. But it’s unnecessary for you to attack basilectical dialects in this way.
Speaking and writing a standard dialect does not preclude speaking a non-standard dialect, and vice versa. I speak both standard and non-standard Québécois French quite adequately for my purposes, and both are useful at different times.
There is no reason not to educate people in standard English usage for appropriate sociolinguistic contexts, but there is also no reason to attack non-standard English dialects used in other contexts. Standard English is not superior to non-standard English; it’s useful in different contexts. Attacking non-standard English is blinkered and pointless.
Pennylane, when people say “lay” instead of “lie”, they are probably not using the wrong tense of the intransitive verb “To lie”. Rather, they are using the correct tense of the incorrect transitive verb “to lay”. Tenses are not disappearing, just the awareness of the difference between passive and active verbs.
Manda JO, people may indeed have started saying “lay down” due to the use of the transitive verb in certain well-known phrases, such as “Now I lay me down to sleep”. That would certainly explain the strange way that this usage of the word seems to have spread like wildfire. But it is still (according to me, at least) a mistake.
I don’t have any desire to keep the English language pure. I like the fact that new words are constantly being added to our vocabulary - whether they arise from modern technology or gangster rap. I don’t abhor changes in grammar or orthography. But I feel that our standards regarding these two subjects are falling a bit. I think that this is not because we are growing more ignorant, but in fact because we are growing less ignorant. In the past, reading and writing were the prerogative of scholars. The general public often could not read and certainly had little opportunity to publish their thoughts and opinions for the perusal of others. The Internet, in particular, is a great equaliser. Every one of us can become a published writer, with no need for proof-readers or editors. This means that we now learn from each other, instead of exclusively from professors and scholarly texts. Of course, the benefits of this, in my opinion outweigh any negative consequences. However, I hope we don’t have to sacrifice too many words to the altar of functionality. I’ve studied many languages, and in my biased opinion English is by far the most expressive.
Oh, I agree completely–it is a mistake. But I think it is a slightly more understandable one–tense is pretty basic, and it wouls be strange if people just started ignoring it. If you drop me an email, I can send you my lay/lie flow chart, which is a handy visual reference for explaining this to idiots.
After all I’ve said, I do actually (well partially) agree with pennylane. There are some grammatical rules which I like and ought to be retained. And as to the borrow/lend swapover, I really can’t stand it. Another one that bugs the hell out of me is “I won you” instead of “I beat you”. You won me? What you going to do, stick me in your trophy cabinet??
Haha, Izzardesque! I’ve never heard that one before…
Its very common round my way.
My brothers have broad Derbyshire accents, and always accuse me of being a bloody SOutherner for trying to speak properly
I stand behind pennylane on this one, I think. It’s great that language grows and develops, but it’s worth our while (or whilst) to try and avoid its growing into an inferior communication tool. “One and a thousand”, “Can you borrow me a…” “Loosing my car keys” and the like don’t represent a progressive step, they’re simply the result (and future cause of) sloppy thinking, and a basic failure to care about clarity of message.
I’m going to take a stab in the dark and say that it was George Bernard Shaw who said the following: “Every word of which a man is ignorant represents an idea of which he is ignorant.” The tendency to use words only approximately will have a similar effect. The phrase “one in a thousand chance” has meaning whereas “one and a thousand chance” is literally meaningless. What do we gain by communicating in meaningless phrases? For example, will clarity benefit from the conflation of “lose” and “loose”? I doubt it. These changes are barriers to expression, not enhancements of the language. Which is why, when possible, they should be discouraged.
And how? By teaching spelling and bloody grammar in the classroom, that’s how. It’s too late for my generation, but hopefully this evil can be fought. Educators, we salute you.
AMR
This was kinda my point. We do need grammar to ensure clarity and conformity in communication, but it can be taken too far. The Churchill quote earlier is a good example of how good grammar can actually make things worse (and yes, I do understand that it was deliberate)!
[qoute]
“Every word of which a man is ignorant represents an idea of which he is ignorant.”
[/quote]
I like that quote, I may have to use it again.
I think the problem lies in the fact that a lot of grammar is taught merely by rote with very little understanding of the meaning behind, and reason for, the rules. I think if there was a greater understanding of THAT then the fundamentals of grammar would be retained, while still allowing the language to be flexible and grow organically.
Damn forgot to preview my post. Pesky typing fingers getting the o and the u the wrong way around…
Explain to me, please, how “borrow me your car keys,” as grating to my ears as it sounds, how does this lead to sloppy thinking? How does it affect clarity? As I stated before, several languages do fine without this distinction. It seems some dialects of English are the same. Does anyone not understand what “borrow me” in this construction means?
There is no loss is clarity of message here.
“Loose” is an orthographic error. It has nothing to do with grammar. I hate this mistake, but it simply stems from the misrepresentation of the “oo” sound.
And this “one and a thousand” example. As I stated before, I have NEVER heard it used this way, and my looks through altavista for the phrases “one and a thousand” vs “one in a thousand” and “one and a million” vs “one in a million” seem to support that almost nobody is misusing this phrase be substituting “and” for “in.” This example clearly is ungrammatical and destroys the clarity of what is being said. But, it seems to be a rare, if at all existent, phenomenon.
Explain to me, please, how “borrow me your car keys,” as grating to my ears as it sounds, how does this lead to sloppy thinking? How does it affect clarity? As I stated before, several languages do fine without this distinction. It seems some dialects of English are the same. Does anyone not understand what “borrow me” in this construction means?
There is no loss is clarity of message here.
“Loose” is an orthographic error. It has nothing to do with grammar. I hate this mistake, but it simply stems from the misrepresentation of the “oo” sound.
And this “one and a thousand” example. As I stated before, I have NEVER heard it used this way, and my looks through altavista for the phrases “one and a thousand” vs “one in a thousand” and “one and a million” vs “one in a million” seem to support that almost nobody is misusing this phrase by substituting “and” for “in.” This example clearly is ungrammatical and destroys the clarity of what is being said. But, it seems to be a rare, if at all existent, phenomenon.
Many of those languages also have strict rules about the objects you must use with the verb to indicate whether you mean “borrow” and “loan”. It seems to me that one of the reasons such rules are looser in English is that we have a vocabulary large enough to make such enforced distinctions unnecessary.
In the example of “borrow me your car keys”, for example, the meaning is quite clear. But what if you asked someone for a certain book of theirs and they told you that the book was “borrowed”? They could mean that they’d borrowed it from a library and had to return it, or that they’d lent it to someone else. English could make the use of an object obligatory in one case to make the meaning clear but isn’t it simpler just to stick with the two words?
I’ve only seen it twice (originally I had seen it once but I just did a search for “one and a thousand chance” on Yahoo! and found it again). It was just an example of what could become widespread in the same way “could of” is becoming more widespread. They are similar in that they are not grammatical errors… nor are they really spelling errors… they are just examples of careless writing.