Well, to be honest, in Polish you can indicate a book is lent by adding “wy” to the verb, the equivalent of “out” in English. In other words “I borrowed it out.” Otherwise, if it’s borrowed, it’s “I borrowed it.”
Anyhow, it’s a bit apples and oranges, anyway. I’m not really disagreeing with you, I think. I’m just saying that if English evolves in such a way that we choose to drop “lend” and say “borrow out” or “borrow to” instead of “lend,” it’s no great loss. Just a different way of saying the same thing. There’s no reason to get up in arms about it, and to speculate that based on this our society is slowly devolving into an illiterate mass.
As far as I am concerned, language is a product that survives and changes as the marketplace demands. In this case the marketplace is communication. There is no reason to take a snapshot of the language at any point in time and say this is correct, because it is not enforceable and it is not necessary. And I see some folks saying A is fine with me but B really gets to me. Well I have no idea how to get around that. Language is subject to individual taste as much as music and literature. But there is no objective rationale by which we can pick and choose the correct rules, spellings etc. that we want to keep (apart from a French-style Acadamy). Well I take that back, there is one method, the method of constant evolution of language. The de-centralized market of communication that is dictated by taste and necessity and common sense and the need to express ideas is the best guide.
I admit I am guilty of the “A is good but B is bad”. I didn’t say I was rational about it!! I know there is no difference between borrow/lend and any other grammatical and lexiconical changes but I just don’t like it. Sorry!
My main point is that the langauge will develop willy nilly but I would like to see SOME rules kept.
Well, nobody’s arguing for anarchy. There is a system in which prescriptive rules are quite welcome: Standard English (well, Standard American English, Standard British English, Standard Canadian English, etc.)
You can definitely say that “borrow me your pen” is wrong in Standard English. So you shouldn’t say it during a job interview, on a news broadcast, in a non-fiction book or essay, etc. What I object to is the snobbery of those who suggest that “borrow me your pen” in any context evinces sloppy thinking, poor grammar, ignorance, and the like. No; it evinces a dialect or idiolect other than Standard English, in which “borrow me your pen” is grammatical, because /'baro/ has the meaning “to lend” as well as “to borrow”.
To use another example, “I don’t have nothing” is ungrammatical in Standard English, but there are several dialects of non-Standard English in which it is grammatical, just as it is in French; by the same token, “J’ai rien” is ungrammatical in Standard French but grammatical (“I have nothing”) in English (and for that matter in non-Standard French, especially non-Standard Québécois).
You wouldn’t argue that “Je n’ai rien” is illogical/meaningless/sloppy in Standard French; there’s therefore no reason to argue that the same thing (“I don’t have nothing”) is so in Vernacular English.
You can say “j’ai rien” in French but you are supposed to write “je n’ai rien”.
I have no problem with people saying “I ain’t got nothin’” or even with them writing it in certain contexts. But I might have some reservations about it becoming a grammatically correct way to say, “I have nothing”, because to me there is a useful distinction between “I have nothing” and “I haven’t got nothing”. Grammatically, they are not synonymous, so my boss asks me if I have nothing to do, I might say, “I haven’t got nothing to do” (implying that he doesn’t need to give me any more work) instead of, “I have something to do” (in which case he might catch me out by asking me what, and I’d have to reveal my membership to this message board)…
gobear, I don’t think you take my point. “I don’t have nothing” is incorrect Standard English; however, some people here have accused such features of non-Standard English of being illogical/meaningless/etc., and decried their existence as part of any dialect of English. I am trying to demonstrate that just as they do not render another language inferior, they don’t render another dialect inferior. You cannot criticize non-Standard English by comparing it to Standard English any more than you can criticize Standard French by comparing it to Standard English.
pennylane: that’s more or less what I said (written language X is usually standard language X, leaving fiction and whatnot aside).
I would note, too, that losing the “I have nothing/I don’t have nothing” distinction wouldn’t have to mean losing the ability to express the colour of meaning that you mention. It can be expressed in French (“Je n’ai pas rien”) and in Spanish (“No es que no tengo nada”) despite their double negatives. But we digress.
Merton has convinced me. I’m returning to the King’s English posthaste. Wot, wot! Cheerio! Colour!
Well, except for “donut”. I like not having to spell out doughnut. And “nite”. And “thru”.* Those commercial contractions are just so darn cute. Kind of like the use of the word “shoppe” for “shop” that was all the rage back in the 1970’s. But aside from those words, I will return to proper English.
*I once saw “late nite donut drive-thru” on a sign once. I swear.
The double negative rule is arbitrary and stupid. It was not until the 19th century that it was considered substandard, and some English teachers still want to convince me that two negatives make a positive. Language does not operate under the principles of mathematical logic. The use of two negative words like that form an emphatic or, negative concord. To me, “I ain’t got nothing” is a stronger way of saying “I haven’t got anything” NOT “I have something.” Unless context dictates otherwise, as in pennylane’s example, a double negative is normally an emphatic negative. (And re: your example, penny, that construction seems pretty convoluted to begin with and for reasons of clarity, I wouldn’t use it.)
What tweaks me about this is basically what matt was saying. That certain people will argue that “sloppy” grammar reflects sloppy thinking. When it comes to rules like these, there is no sloppy grammar involved. Just arbitrary rules. (Though, of course, I do agree Standard English should be used in any professional context.)
Lots of sensible posts here IMHO. I don’t have a problem with people using dialect or non-Standard English in a colloquial setting (I do it myself all the time). I also realise that grammar is subject to changes in usage, so that any language does evolve over time.
But it’s a pity if people try to use this fact to excuse their own ignorance, especially on these boards where we’re supposed to be fighting ignorance, not sustaining it. If you use a non-Standard form because it’s common in your social circle, that’s no bad thing. If you do it because you don’t know any better, that is a bad thing. If you insist that Standards should be ignored because you don’t know them or are too lazy to learn them then we might as well go back to grunting like animals.
If a grammatical rule doesn’t have any logical basis, it will fall out of use eventually and nobody will mourn its passing. If a rule falls out of use because we were too stupid or lazy to apply it, that’s a shame.
My only arguments with the OP were that;
English is not “our” language (I’m English), so American spellings are not wrong, they’re just different.
Telling us not to use “different to” is not misplaced advice because “different from” is the standard this side of the Atlantic too, however common the mistake is.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Houlihan *
I'm returning to the King's English posthaste... Well, except for "donut". I like not having to spell out doughnut. And "nite". And "thru". Those commercial contractions are just so darn cute.
[/QUOTE]
Oh no they're not, mate! Prepare for much clenching of teeth from me if I catch you using them :)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Izzardesque *
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Houlihan *
I'm returning to the King's English posthaste. Wot, wot! Cheerio! Colour!
[/QUOTE]
Just to be pedantic - Queen's Englsih. We haven't got a king at the moment
[/QUOTE]
But I bet we did have the last time anyone said "Wot, wot!"
I’ve been keeping up with this thread since my last post, and most people seem to agree that in certain situations non-standard English is okay to speak, if not altogether appropriate. It seems that the problem most people have is a fear that certain non-standard English will come to be “proper.” So my question is, do you have any examples of this happening?
While (whilst?) there may occasionally be certain aspects of a language that are redundant or pointless ultimately a language will evolve dictated by what is needed, and what is logical. Consider for example the fact that there was much greater opportunity for corruption of the language in the past when the common man, being uneducated, was likely unaware of the exact rules of grammar. Our language, I think, evolved splendidly regardless.
As you can imagine I’d have to disagree with the “meaningless” comment; you know what they meant so I’d hardly call what they said meaningless, which is my point in some ways. Even though there may be a way to communicate a specific message more effectively, simply because someone never learned how to do so does not make what they say gibberish. I would also like to take this chance to apologize for starting the “one and a thousand” mini-debate that’s been going on in this thread. I’ve never heard that saying either and only used it because I was looking for an example in my previous post. I wasn’t saying that it was now a common expression, just that if enough people actually did use it, it would be, and what would be the problem with that?
As for the “sloppy English, sloppy thinking” argument, to assume that simply because people use non-standard English, even in inappropriate circumstances, they will develop sloppy thinking is, I think, irrational. There is an assumption that since they are not following the proper English grammar rules their ability to reason will suffer, but that assumes that the grammar they are using has no rules. Pulykamell pointed out that BVE has it’s own rules of grammar and I imagine that the vast majority of variations to the English language do as well. Therefore it seems reasonable to assume that any irrationalities in a person’s thinking process are not due to their using a non-standard form of the language. Nor does use of non-standard English necessarily cause a lack of clarity in the message depending on who is being spoken to; if they share or understand the dialect then they will be able to understand what each is trying to communicate just fine.
Mind you I’m not arguing for the people who never learned non-standard English; it is the dominant “dialect” and if a person does not learn it they will have difficulty getting ahead in this world (unless they become a gangsta-rapper). But at the same time let’s remember that the majority of people are familiar with Standard English even if they don’t practice it.
In today’s Western world literacy rates are among the highest in history. Couple this with the fact that education is mandatory (in most US states at least) until at least the age of sixteen and this means that the common man has much greater access to, and knowledge of, different philosophies and cultures than before. Although many people do write or speak non-Standard English, French, etc. that does not mean that their thought processes are necessarily becoming sloppier. If anything with the ability of the common man today to access a greater variety of opinions than previous generations I would venture a guess that most people today are capable of more complicated thought processes than most people in the past (not everyone today, but more than before).
Well, this thread claims that he’s a troll, and starting a thread then never bothering to contribute to it any further is a bad sign. If he is a troll then, presumably, he expected to start some kind of transatlantic slamming contest, so he must be disappointed that we’ve all been so civilised ;).
how can you say americans are corrupting the queen’s english? the only person in the world to speak the queen’s english is the bloody queen. there are regional and national variations of english and each should be regarded as a different language in its own right. you can as much expect americans to start conforming to the thames valley accent as you can liverpudlians. the slang terms and quirks of a manner of speaking make that language, it changes as the people speak it do, words that are now ‘proper’ used to be common as muck and im sure small minded people like you said the same thing 50 years ago about words we consider formal as you are saying now. sure its annoying that we have to use Word and microsoft havent exactly got all the spellings in English (U.K) exactly right, but who really cares anyway? at least we are lucky enough to have as our first language, one of the most common and widely used. the english language is not ‘ours’, it’s not even england’s, it is owned by whoever speaks it. as long as we can understand what they are saying, then does it really matter if it isn’t exactly perfect?
Yes, that is my fear. I can’t think of any examples of this happening except in the case of the “un” and “in” prefixes used to negate words. I was taught that different prefixes are used to negate different words, and now I find that many dictionaries accept either. For example, I used to think that only “inaccurate” was accurate but now I find that “unaccurate” is accurate also. This is a pretty feeble example so hopefully my fears are indeed irrational.
This argument was what led me to my comments about grunts and gesticulation replacing grammar, at which point I was told, “[no-one] suggested we eliminate orthography or grammar”. The phrase “a one and a thousand chance” is meaningless, but in context it can be understood. Of course, most grammar mistakes, spelling mistakes and typos can be understood in context. Luckily, I have only very rarely seen someone write so badly that he couldn’t be understood at all! I don’t believe that everything that can be understood in context should be accepted as grammatically (or orthographically) correct.
Well, most people are still unaware of the exact rules of grammar, but have the opportunity to write and be read as they never did in the past. I know several people who are in the process of acquiring PhD degrees and still have a pretty terrible grasp of grammar and spelling. They’re the kind of people whose posts would be ignored on this message board, but their papers and, eventually, books will be read by university students.
Nevertheless, it is possible that my fears are misplaced…
You have a point there, but those people going for PhD’s have a better grasp of the language than most people did a hundred or so years ago. They are (hopefully) aware of what nouns, verbs, etc. are, and they probably have a grasp of what a basic sentence should look like. So even though their grasp of the intricacies of the language may be poor they are still better educated on the subject than most people used to be.
By the way, is your name a Beatles reference? 'Cause Penny Lane’s an awesome tune.
Context is all very well in ephemeral speech – the only problem is, especially in this day and age with information being spread so easily, is that things can easily be taken ‘out’ of context. And sorry, pennylane, I always seem to pick on something you’ve said to quote – I’m not trying to have a dig at you, it was just the sentence that made me think of my point. In a way, its almost a compliment- you are my muse! grin
And sarky, I object to being called small minded just for debating my opinion – the fact that I have supported my own, and others’, arguments, and taken on others’ points, points somewhat to the opposite
