Re: correcting my son's grammar?
James Hogg
> (Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's
> accent last summer.)
>
> He has now picked up the local accent from his peers. But
> unfortunately he's also picked up their bad grammar and says
> things like "Me and Billy did this" -- how can I get him to
> say "Billy and I did this" instead?
>
> My husband and I both set a good example, and I've tried
> "recasting" his sentences, but his peers' bad example seems
> to keep overriding ours.
>
> Any advice?
Keep him away from Billy.
--
James
Christopher Culver
Sure. Don't crosspost questions like this to sci.lang, because the
people hereabouts are likely to tell you that you shouldn't worry
about it, and that "Me and X did this" is not "bad grammar" as
such. Something tells me you probably won't like those answers.
If you want someone to talk in an intellectual-sounding fashion,
scolding him is going to have little positive effect. Make him
passionate for reading, though, and that would probably carry over
into his speech.
Leslie Danks
> (Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's
> accent last summer.)
>
> He has now picked up the local accent from his peers. But
> unfortunately he's also picked up their bad grammar and says
> things like "Me and Billy did this" -- how can I get him to
> say "Billy and I did this" instead?
>
> My husband and I both set a good example, and I've tried
> "recasting" his sentences, but his peers' bad example seems
> to keep overriding ours.
Children have their own agenda and, painful though it may be, acceptance
by their peers tends to be more important to them than parental approval.
The vile "me and Billy did this" is steadily gaining ground; by the time
your children are grown up it will probably be accepted by people
otherwise considered to be educated and literate. Your only chance of
resistance is to set your son among the right sort of peers -- if you can
find any...
--
Les (BrE)
Leslie Danks
> (Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's
> accent last summer.)
>
> He has now picked up the local accent from his peers. But
> unfortunately he's also picked up their bad grammar and says
> things like "Me and Billy did this" -- how can I get him to
> say "Billy and I did this" instead?
>
> My husband and I both set a good example, and I've tried
> "recasting" his sentences, but his peers' bad example seems
> to keep overriding ours.
>
> Any advice?
tony cooper
<mar...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
>(Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's
>accent last summer.)
>
>He has now picked up the local accent from his peers. But
>unfortunately he's also picked up their bad grammar and says
>things like "Me and Billy did this" -- how can I get him to
>say "Billy and I did this" instead?
>
>My husband and I both set a good example, and I've tried
>"recasting" his sentences, but his peers' bad example seems
>to keep overriding ours.
>
>Any advice?
What is your son's age?
If he's a pre-teen, then it's far too early - in my opinion - to worry
about this. What you are trying to convey is unimportant to him
compared to fitting in with his playmates.
I agree that you should continue to correct him and guide him, but not
in a way that makes him feel that you think his friends are
unacceptably ignorant. Your criticisms of your son's friend's English
may be construed as criticism of the friends. Your son will just
become defensive of his friends.
If your son is still a "toddler", I think you are *really* premature
in your concern. Excessive criticism in areas where the child is not
yet old enough to have a concept of the rules involved can lead to
insecurities that will stay with him for years.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
Though now that she _has_ cross-posted to sci.lang, maybe Brian Scott
will explain how he ended up "talking like a book," since that's
apparently the fate she wants for her son.
She'll probably need to lay in a good supply of Band-Aids and Bactine.
(Do they still make Bactine?)
Leslie Danks's attitude is Neanderthal at the latest.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:33:42 +0100, "Martha N."
>
> <mar...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
> >(Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's
> >accent last summer.)
>
> >He has now picked up the local accent from his peers. But
> >unfortunately he's also picked up their bad grammar and says
> >things like "Me and Billy did this" -- how can I get him to
> >say "Billy and I did this" instead?
>
> >My husband and I both set a good example, and I've tried
> >"recasting" his sentences, but his peers' bad example seems
> >to keep overriding ours.
>
> >Any advice?
>
> What is your son's age?
Well, if he was a toddler last summer, ...
> If he's a pre-teen, then it's far too early - in my opinion - to worry
> about this. What you are trying to convey is unimportant to him
> compared to fitting in with his playmates.
>
> I agree that you should continue to correct him and guide him, but not
> in a way that makes him feel that you think his friends are
> unacceptably ignorant. Your criticisms of your son's friend's English
> may be construed as criticism of the friends. Your son will just
> become defensive of his friends.
>
> If your son is still a "toddler", I think you are *really* premature
> in your concern. Excessive criticism in areas where the child is not
> yet old enough to have a concept of the rules involved can lead to
> insecurities that will stay with him for years.
Well said.
Harlan Messinger
> (Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's
> accent last summer.)
>
> He has now picked up the local accent from his peers. But
> unfortunately he's also picked up their bad grammar and says
> things like "Me and Billy did this" -- how can I get him to
> say "Billy and I did this" instead?
Good luck correcting this without also leading him to say "She gave it
to Billy and I", a flaw in the speech of millions of Americans, if not
also of English speakers elsewhere.
Bertel Lund Hansen
> He has now picked up the local accent from his peers. But
> unfortunately he's also picked up their bad grammar and says
> things like "Me and Billy did this" -- how can I get him to
> say "Billy and I did this" instead?
I as a child was pretty much annoyed when my parents tried to
ridicule or correct my language. It didn't help, and it didn't
further warm feelings among us.
What I did learn, was a strong interest in language, but that was
a result of entertaining and informative discussions about
language plus their example in Danish as well as foreign
languages.
Sons and daughters may become heroin addicts, abducted, killed,
gangsters, rapists, pedofiles or satanists. In comparison their
use of natural language like "Me and Bobby McGee" seems
unimportant.
> My husband and I both set a good example,
That is what you should do and the only thing you can do - and
then you must learn to respect the choices of your son,
especially when they differ from the ones you would want.
> and I've tried "recasting" his sentences, but his peers' bad
> example seems to keep overriding ours.
Just like your peers' did yours.
> Any advice?
Remember your own childhood.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Ruud Harmsen
in sci.lang:
>(Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's
>accent last summer.)
>
>He has now picked up the local accent from his peers. But
>unfortunately he's also picked up their bad grammar and says
>things like "Me and Billy did this" -- how can I get him to
>say "Billy and I did this" instead?
You can't and don't need to. What he says is good English.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.eu
HVS
Couldn't agree more, Tony; I'd just add that another reason for
treading carefully at that age is that as they grow up, kids
usually become pretty adept at working out what register to use
with what group, and seamlessly switch between them.
"You and me should go there, Billy." "Hey, mum -- can Billy and I
go there?"
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Leslie Danks
[...]
> Leslie Danks's attitude is Neanderthal at the latest.
Yeah. That's probably why your ancestors ate them.
--
Les (BrE)
James Hogg
This could be qualified by saying that it is not regarded as good formal
English and is considered by many to be downright unacceptable in
written language. The boy will no doubt learn to understand the
significance of different registers. To show that there is some hope for
him, I can say that I was born and brought up in a community where
everybody said "Me and Billy". I learned how and when to say and write
"Billy and I" but I had to learn it as a slightly foreign language. It
still hurts to hear that the natural language of my birthplace is
"vile". I can't help where I was born, any more than I can help the
colour of the skin I was born with, but the consolation is that it's
easier for a dialect speaker to learn Standard English than it is to
change your skin colour if you suffer discrimination on account of it.
--
James
Ruud Harmsen
in sci.lang:
>Children have their own agenda and, painful though it may be, acceptance
>by their peers tends to be more important to them than parental approval.
>The vile "me and Billy did this" is steadily gaining ground; by the time
>your children are grown up it will probably be accepted by people
>otherwise considered to be educated and literate.
And if not, they will have perfectly and automatically learnt that
a) everybody says it, and
b) it is frowned upon by some.
Both aspects are part of a native speaker's fine and subtle knowledge
of the language.
Jerry Friedman
> > He has now picked up the local accent from his peers. But
> > unfortunately he's also picked up their bad grammar and says
> > things like "Me and Billy did this" -- how can I get him to
> > say "Billy and I did this" instead?
...
> If you want someone to talk in an intellectual-sounding fashion,
> scolding him is going to have little positive effect. Make him
> passionate for reading, though, and that would probably carry over
> into his speech.
How do you manage that? You can improve the odds by encouraging him,
giving him every opportunity, and showing how you enjoy reading, but I
doubt there's a way to make him passionate for it.
--
Jerry Friedman
Ruud Harmsen
<hmessinger...@comcast.net>: in sci.lang:
Moi, je le crois aussi.
Jerry Friedman
To get this to work, you have to have some way to let your son know
that you prefer "Billy and I". Criticism may not be the way, and
"excessive criticism" is by definition not the way.
And I suspect you have to be prepared for some emphasis on "Billy and
I" and a supposedly surreptitious glance at Billy to point out how
cruel you are.
--
Jerry Friedman
Ruud Harmsen
<unos...@lundhansen.dk>: in sci.lang:
>> My husband and I both set a good example,
>
>That is what you should do and the only thing you can do - and
>then you must learn to respect the choices of your son,
>especially when they differ from the ones you would want.
Right, and the children will notice the difference and be aware of its
existence, and master both choices, for later use as apprioprate for
the situations they will encounter during their life, which may
include setting the example for _their_ children..
It all comes naturally.
Ruud Harmsen
tony cooper
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Oct 26, 9:55�am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:33:42 +0100, "Martha N."
>>
>> <mar...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
>> >(Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's
>> >accent last summer.)
>>
>> >He has now picked up the local accent from his peers. But
>> >unfortunately he's also picked up their bad grammar and says
>> >things like "Me and Billy did this" -- how can I get him to
>> >say "Billy and I did this" instead?
>>
>> >My husband and I both set a good example, and I've tried
>> >"recasting" his sentences, but his peers' bad example seems
>> >to keep overriding ours.
>>
>> >Any advice?
>>
>> What is your son's age?
>
>Well, if he was a toddler last summer, ...
What is your definition - age-wise - of a "toddler"? What is the OP's
definition?
My definition of a toddler is a child that has just learned to walk.
A child that can put together a sentence like "Me and Billy..." is
past the toddler stage. A child that can be taught to recast a
sentence is *far* past the toddler stage.
I have two grandchildren well-past the toddler stage. One is four and
the other one is just six. They both say things like "My brother
hitted me". I'm not at all concerned about it.
We (parents or grandparents) don't criticize them for this. We may
ask "Why did your brother hit you?" as an example of the correct form,
though. The boys will figure it out.
John Dean
> (Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's
> accent last summer.)
>
> He has now picked up the local accent from his peers. But
> unfortunately he's also picked up their bad grammar and says
> things like "Me and Billy did this" -- how can I get him to
> say "Billy and I did this" instead?
>
> My husband and I both set a good example, and I've tried
> "recasting" his sentences, but his peers' bad example seems
> to keep overriding ours.
>
> Any advice?
If he says "Me and Billy" to you & the spouse I suppose the worst he gets is
a tut-tut.
If he says "Billy and I" to the gang he hangs with he may get called names
or even busted in the mouth.
Key thing is whether he *knows* the difference. If he does, and can use the
right form in the right situation, an occasional lapse is no biggie.
--
John Dean
Oxford
HVS
> On Oct 26, 8:24�am, HVS <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 26 Oct 2009, tony cooper wrote
-snip-
>> Couldn't agree more, Tony; �I'd just add that another reason
>> for treading carefully at that age is that as they grow up,
>> kids usually become pretty adept at working out what register
>> to use with what group, and seamlessly switch between them.
>>
>> "You and me should go there, Billy." �"Hey, mum -- can Billy
>> and I go there?"
>
> To get this to work, you have to have some way to let your son
> know that you prefer "Billy and I". Criticism may not be the
> way, and "excessive criticism" is by definition not the way.
Indeed. As Tony said, correction is right and proper; that's what I
meant by "treading carefully", though.
>
> And I suspect you have to be prepared for some emphasis on
> "Billy and I" and a supposedly surreptitious glance at Billy to
> point out how cruel you are.
I should hope so. One doesn't want to deprive kids of that delicious
feeling of having let your parents know you're being sooooo
unreasonably persecuted...
Leslie Danks
> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:33:42 +0100: "Martha N." <mar...@NOSPAM.invalid>:
>> in sci.lang:
[...]
>>> He has now picked up the local accent from his peers. But
>>> unfortunately he's also picked up their bad grammar and says things
>>> like "Me and Billy did this" -- how can I get him to say "Billy
>>> and I did this" instead?
>>
>> You can't and don't need to. What he says is good English.
>
> This could be qualified by saying that it is not regarded as good formal
> English and is considered by many to be downright unacceptable in
> written language. The boy will no doubt learn to understand the
> significance of different registers. To show that there is some hope for
> him, I can say that I was born and brought up in a community where
> everybody said "Me and Billy". I learned how and when to say and write
> "Billy and I" but I had to learn it as a slightly foreign language. It
> still hurts to hear that the natural language of my birthplace is
> "vile".
I apologise for making you suffer. If I had thought a bit longer before
pressing "send", I would have explained better what I meant: I find "me
and billy" to be vile in the wrong context. I have nothing against it as
part of a dialect different from formal English dialect. When my
(university educated) children use it while talking to me, I do not like
it -- though I have given up the Quixotic struggle to bring them back on
to the straight and narrow.
> I can't help where I was born, any more than I can help the
> colour of the skin I was born with, but the consolation is that it's
> easier for a dialect speaker to learn Standard English than it is to
> change your skin colour if you suffer discrimination on account of it.
Some of my best friends speak a dialect different from mine.
--
Les (BrE)
James Hogg
I appreciate the clarification. As for the accusation that your attitude is
Neanderthal, I wonder what evidence Peter Daniels has that the
Neanderthals were excessive purists.
--
James
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> On Oct 26, 9:36�am, Christopher Culver
> <crcul...@christopherculver.com> wrote:
>> "Martha N." <mar...@NOSPAM.invalid> writes:
>>> (Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's
>>> accent last summer.)
>>
>>> He has now picked up the local accent from his peers. But
>>> unfortunately he's also picked up their bad grammar and says
>>> things like "Me and Billy did this" -- how can I get him to
>>> say "Billy and I did this" instead?
>>
>>> My husband and I both set a good example, and I've tried
>>> "recasting" his sentences, but his peers' bad example seems
>>> to keep overriding ours.
>>
>>> Any advice?
>>
>> Sure. Don't crosspost questions like this to sci.lang, because the
>> people hereabouts are likely to tell you that you shouldn't worry
>> about it, and that "Me and X did this" is not "bad grammar" as
>> such. Something tells me you probably won't like those answers.
>>
>> If you want someone to talk in an intellectual-sounding fashion,
>> scolding him is going to have little positive effect. Make him
>> passionate for reading, though, and that would probably carry over
>> into his speech.
>
> Though now that she _has_ cross-posted to sci.lang, maybe Brian Scott
> will explain how he ended up "talking like a book," since that's
> apparently the fate she wants for her son...
In the absence (so far) of a contribution from Brian Scott, maybe I can
comment on the development of my daughter -- now a fully trilingual
adult -- who grew up in France with one English-speaking and one
Spanish-speaking parent. I wouldn't say she spoke like a book when she
was ten, but she certainly spoke like an adult. For a long time her
only native model for English was me (not 100% of the time, but a large
part of it), and, not surprisingly, she used very few childish
expressions in English and a lot of words that one normally hears only
from adults. However, it only took a day or two of exposure to
English-speaking children for her to adopt a way of speaking more usual
for her age. Her development in Spanish was quite similar, whereas in
French she followed exactly the course you'd expect for someone mixing
all the time with French children.
--
athel
LEE Sau Dan
tony> I have two grandchildren well-past the toddler stage. One is
tony> four and the other one is just six. They both say things like
tony> "My brother hitted me". I'm not at all concerned about it.
tony> We (parents or grandparents) don't criticize them for this.
tony> We may ask "Why did your brother hit you?" as an example of
tony> the correct form, though. The boys will figure it out.
How does that serve as an example?
"My brother spotted me" -> "When did your brother spot you?"
and
*"My brother hitted me" -> "When did your brother hit you?"
are parallel.
How can a child or even an adult learning English as L2 figure out that
"hitted" is the wrong from from your example?
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Ekkehard Dengler
> James Hogg wrote:
>
>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
>>> Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:33:42 +0100: "Martha N."
>>> <mar...@NOSPAM.invalid>: in sci.lang:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> He has now picked up the local accent from his peers. But
>>>> unfortunately he's also picked up their bad grammar and says things
>>>> like "Me and Billy did this" -- how can I get him to say "Billy
>>>> and I did this" instead?
>>>
>>> You can't and don't need to. What he says is good English.
>>
>> This could be qualified by saying that it is not regarded as good
>> formal English and is considered by many to be downright
>> unacceptable in written language. The boy will no doubt learn to
>> understand the significance of different registers. To show that
>> there is some hope for him, I can say that I was born and brought up
>> in a community where everybody said "Me and Billy". I learned how
>> and when to say and write "Billy and I" but I had to learn it as a
>> slightly foreign language. It still hurts to hear that the natural
>> language of my birthplace is "vile".
>
> I apologise for making you suffer. If I had thought a bit longer
> before pressing "send", I would have explained better what I meant: I
> find "me and billy" to be vile in the wrong context.
Imagine Obama saying "Me and Michelle wish all who celebrate Rosh Hashanah a
healthy, peaceful and sweet New Year", for instance.
Regards,
Ekkehard
Bertel Lund Hansen
> tony> We (parents or grandparents) don't criticize them for this.
> tony> We may ask "Why did your brother hit you?" as an example of
> tony> the correct form, though. The boys will figure it out.
> How does that serve as an example?
How does it not?
> "My brother spotted me" -> "When did your brother spot you?"
> and
> *"My brother hitted me" -> "When did your brother hit you?"
> are parallel.
Yes.
> How can a child or even an adult learning English as L2 figure out that
> "hitted" is the wrong from from your example?
They can't. They need many other examples. Natural use of
language offers precisely that.
The method that Tnoy described, is the best way to teach small
children correct language. Whenever they say something
ungrammatical, repeat the central words using them correctly.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
It's _really_ hard to mess up native language acquisition.
Since she speaks three languages natively, supposedly she has more
than normal aptitude for learning (i.e. as L2) additional languages --
has she tried?
Peter T. Daniels
It was a reference to the date rather than to the (sub)species.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
LSD is quite right. The correct preterite "hit" is not used in the
response, so it cannot serve as a model for replacing the regularized
form "hitted."
A response that _does_ incorporate the correction would be "Your
brother hit you?? When did he do that?"
Children _understand_ "irregular" inflections before they can
_produce_ them.
James Hogg
That clarifies things. I didn't realise that linguistic purism was so old.
--
James
tony cooper
<john...@fraglineone.net> wrote:
>Martha N. wrote:
>> (Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's
>> accent last summer.)
>>
>> He has now picked up the local accent from his peers. But
>> unfortunately he's also picked up their bad grammar and says
>> things like "Me and Billy did this" -- how can I get him to
>> say "Billy and I did this" instead?
>>
>> My husband and I both set a good example, and I've tried
>> "recasting" his sentences, but his peers' bad example seems
>> to keep overriding ours.
>>
>> Any advice?
>
>If he says "Me and Billy" to you & the spouse I suppose the worst he gets is
>a tut-tut.
>If he says "Billy and I" to the gang he hangs with he may get called names
>or even busted in the mouth.
I don't think he's going to busted in the chops for saying "Billy and
I" in conversations with his group of friends, but he might if he
starts correcting his friends to show off his knowledge. If his
parents take the position that errors like this are terrible things,
the child might start pedantry before puberty.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
She had some years of German at school, and made faster progress than I
remember doing myself at school with French or German. When she was 15
she spent a few days with the daughter of a German colleague. The
German girl had had more English at school than she had had of German,
and supposedly spoke English, but in practice they found it more
convenient to communicate in German.
I had the impression (just an impression, mind, no actual measurements)
that the fact of being trilingual already made it easier for her to
learn a fourth. Another subjective comment: when she was around
She can pretty much understand written Portuguese, Catalan and Italian,
and can make a lot of sense of them when hearing them.
--
athel
tony cooper
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>> "tony" == tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> tony> I have two grandchildren well-past the toddler stage. One is
> tony> four and the other one is just six. They both say things like
> tony> "My brother hitted me". I'm not at all concerned about it.
>
> tony> We (parents or grandparents) don't criticize them for this.
> tony> We may ask "Why did your brother hit you?" as an example of
> tony> the correct form, though. The boys will figure it out.
>
>How does that serve as an example?
>
> "My brother spotted me" -> "When did your brother spot you?"
>and
> *"My brother hitted me" -> "When did your brother hit you?"
>
>are parallel.
>
>How can a child or even an adult learning English as L2 figure out that
>"hitted" is the wrong from from your example?
It doesn't teach the child the rules, but it does get across to the
child that "hit" is the word and "hitted" is not. Children pick this
kind of thing.
It wouldn't work on an adult learning English because the adult has an
advanced power of reasoning and needs to know "why". Children don't
care about "why" in this area.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:05:12 +0800, LEE Sau Dan
>
>
>
>
>
> <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
>
> > tony> I have two grandchildren well-past the toddler stage. One is
> > tony> four and the other one is just six. They both say things like
> > tony> "My brother hitted me". I'm not at all concerned about it.
>
> > tony> We (parents or grandparents) don't criticize them for this.
> > tony> We may ask "Why did your brother hit you?" as an example of
> > tony> the correct form, though. The boys will figure it out.
>
> >How does that serve as an example?
>
> > "My brother spotted me" -> "When did your brother spot you?"
> >and
> > *"My brother hitted me" -> "When did your brother hit you?"
>
> >are parallel.
>
> >How can a child or even an adult learning English as L2 figure out that
> >"hitted" is the wrong from from your example?
>
> It doesn't teach the child the rules, but it does get across to the
> child that "hit" is the word and "hitted" is not. Children pick this
> kind of thing.
No, it doesn't, because no child would or could say "When did your
brother hitted you?", because any child who can make do-support
questions knows that do-support operates on the infinitive, not on the
preterite.
> It wouldn't work on an adult learning English because the adult has an
> advanced power of reasoning and needs to know "why". Children don't
> care about "why" in this area.
No non-linguist native speaker knows the "why" (if "why" means 'do-
support operates with the infinitive not the preterite). No one,
including linguists, knows "why" do-support operates with the
infinitive not the preterite; that's simply the facts of the language.
Roland Hutchinson
> On 2009-10-26 18:06:51 +0100, "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net>
> said:
>
>> On Oct 26, 12:02 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In the absence (so far) of a contribution from Brian Scott, maybe I
>>> can comment on the development of my daughter -- now a fully
>>> trilingual adult -- who grew up in France with one English-speaking
>>> and one Spanish-speaking parent. I wouldn't say she spoke like a book
>>> when she was ten, but she certainly spoke like an adult. For a long
>>> time her only native model for English was me (not 100% of the time,
>>> but a large part of it), and, not surprisingly, she used very few
>>> childish expressions in English and a lot of words that one normally
>>> hears only from adults. However, it only took a day or two of exposure
>>> to English-speaking children for her to adopt a way of speaking more
>>> usual for her age. Her development in Spanish was quite similar,
>>> whereas in French she followed exactly the course you'd expect for
>>> someone mixing all the time with French children.
> I had the impression (just an impression, mind, no actual measurements)
> that the fact of being trilingual already made it easier for her to
> learn a fourth. Another subjective comment: when she was around
>
> She can pretty much understand written Portuguese, Catalan and Italian,
> and can make a lot of sense of them when hearing them.
My L2 Spanish and L2 French put me in about the same position vis-a-vis
Portuguese, Catalan, and Italian. I did eventually take a formal summer
course in Italian in grad school, the main effect of which was to leave
me without an excuse for not knowing the grammar in detail.
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
Roland Hutchinson
Oh, indeed it is; I believe the Neanderthals used to bury their dead with
it.
Ruud Harmsen
<tony_co...@earthlink.net>: in sci.lang:
>It doesn't teach the child the rules, but it does get across to the
>child that "hit" is the word and "hitted" is not. Children pick this
>kind of thing.
>
>It wouldn't work on an adult learning English because the adult has an
>advanced power of reasoning and needs to know "why". Children don't
>care about "why" in this area.
Right. It's the way it is, just because. Or because everybody says it
like that.
Bart Mathias
> "Martha N." <mar...@NOSPAM.invalid> writes:
>> (Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's
>> accent last summer.)
>>
>> unfortunately he's also picked up their bad grammar and says
>> things like "Me and Billy did this" -- how can I get him to
>> say "Billy and I did this" instead?
>>
>> "recasting" his sentences, but his peers' bad example seems
>> to keep overriding ours.
>>
>> Any advice?
>
> Sure. Don't crosspost questions like this to sci.lang, because the
> people hereabouts are likely to tell you that you shouldn't worry
> about it, and that "Me and X did this" is not "bad grammar" as
> such. Something tells me you probably won't like those answers.
>
> If you want someone to talk in an intellectual-sounding fashion,
> scolding him is going to have little positive effect. Make him
> passionate for reading, though, and that would probably carry over
> into his speech.
Doesn't necessarily work. A friend of mine, retired professor of
microbiology, reads constantly (no TV), especially history, biographies,
culture, botany. He would say, "Let Billy and I do this" because "'Billy
and me' sounds bad."
R H Draney
For suitably small values of "everybody"....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Adam Funk
> Children _understand_ "irregular" inflections before they can
> _produce_ them.
ISTR reading that children understand lots of linguistic phenomena
before they can produce them, including phonemes that they can't
articulate yet. I came across examples (in a book by David Crystal, I
think, but I'm not certain) in which a small child mispronounces a
word, then gets annoyed when the parent repeats the mispronunciation
and says "No, I said ____!" with the same mispronunciation.
--
Le beau est aussi utile que l'utile. [Victor Hugo]
Bertel Lund Hansen
> A response that _does_ incorporate the correction would be "Your
> brother hit you?? When did he do that?"
That was what I meant.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Alan Munn
<be4901d8-f8c9-4339...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
Not completely true. With irregular verbs, (and even some regulars)
these kinds of errors definitely arise. Here are some real examples
from the Brown corpus (Adam, Age (in the cited examples) 3;4 - 3;10, Eve
2;2, Sarah 4;5-5;0)
Of course I agree with the general sentiment that the child will figure
it out her own. Somehow, given the disappearance of the OP, I wonder if
this is simply a troll.
Alan
Yes/No questions:
*** File "adam29.cha": line 1261. Keyword: did
*CHI: oh (.) did I caught it ?
*** File "adam30.cha": line 2207. Keyword: did
*CHI: did you broke that part ?
*** File "adam31.cha": line 3423. Keyword: did
*CHI: did the milk broke ?
*** File "adam31.cha": line 3810. Keyword: did
*CHI: did you made a mistake ?
And with wh-questions:
*** File "adam36.cha": line 4637. Keyword: did
*CHI: what movie did I saw ?
*** File "eve17.cha": line 4506. Keywords: did, did
*CHI: what did you doed [: did] [* +ed] ?
*** File "sarah111.cha": line 110. Keyword: did
*CHI: how did I untangled it ?
*** File "sarah127.cha": line 1449. Keyword: did
*CHI: how did you caught him ?
And some even wackier ones:
*** File "adam34.cha": line 2001. Keyword: did
*CHI: did was it be a comb ?
*** File "adam39.cha": line 1404. Keyword: did
*CHI: did there be some ?
*** File "adam39.cha": line 1407. Keyword: did
*CHI: did it be there ?
Adam Funk
> Though now that she _has_ cross-posted to sci.lang, maybe Brian Scott
> will explain how he ended up "talking like a book," since that's
> apparently the fate she wants for her son.
What do you mean by "talking like a book"? I automatically use
pronouns in the (prescriptively) correct way, probably because I
taught myself to do it. Is that wrong?
> She'll probably need to lay in a good supply of Band-Aids and Bactine.
> (Do they still make Bactine?)
I doubt that people who routinely say "Me and Billy..." will have
issues with hearing someone else say "Billy and I...".
> Leslie Danks's attitude is Neanderthal at the latest.
What if the OP had said she wanted her son to have good table manners
even if his peers don't? Would that be evil prescription?
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
Peter T. Daniels
> On 2009-10-26, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > Though now that she _has_ cross-posted to sci.lang, maybe Brian Scott
> > will explain how he ended up "talking like a book," since that's
> > apparently the fate she wants for her son.
>
> What do you mean by "talking like a book"? I automatically use
> pronouns in the (prescriptively) correct way, probably because I
> taught myself to do it. Is that wrong?
I mean all the things that Brian has reported about himself over the
years.
> > She'll probably need to lay in a good supply of Band-Aids and Bactine.
> > (Do they still make Bactine?)
>
> I doubt that people who routinely say "Me and Billy..." will have
> issues with hearing someone else say "Billy and I...".
>
> > Leslie Danks's attitude is Neanderthal at the latest.
>
> What if the OP had said she wanted her son to have good table manners
> even if his peers don't? Would that be evil prescription?
It would be inappropriate to bring candelabra, table linens, and
fingerbowls to a picnic or a barbecue.
Peter T. Daniels
> In article
> <be4901d8-f8c9-4339-8a02-6413a40ef...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
> *CHI: did it be there ?-
That's one weird kid.
Peter T. Daniels
> Thanks. I guess what concerns me is that I know children
> make mistakes (like irregular verbs) and "grow out of" them
> from exposure to correct language, but in this case he seems
> to be regularly exposed to what we think is incorrect, what
> we don't want him to learn.-
That's exactly the point: "what you think is incorrect" is _not_
incorrect in the contexts where he uses them.
Evan Kirshenbaum
I wouldn't be too sure of that. At that age, if I (deadpan) mimicked
my son's mistakes, I would often be met with a reaction that implied
that he knew that I was saying something wrong. ("Dad, don't be
silly!") At least, he recognized that it was something that "big
people" shouldn't be saying. And if brought an error to his attention
("Bringed?") he would immediately see that it needed correcting and
often supply the right form. But he would go on making the mistake.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Oh, forget it: I can't write about
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |this anymore until I find a much
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |more sarcastic typeface.
| Bill Bickel
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Don Aitken
wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:33:42 , "Martha N."
>> <mar...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >(Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's
>> >accent last summer.)
>> >
>> >He has now picked up the local accent from his peers. But
>> >unfortunately he's also picked up their bad grammar and says
>> >things like "Me and Billy did this" -- how can I get him to
>> >say "Billy and I did this" instead?
>> >
>> >My husband and I both set a good example, and I've tried
>> >"recasting" his sentences, but his peers' bad example seems
>> >to keep overriding ours.
>> >
>> >Any advice?
>>
>> What is your son's age?
>
>4 & 1/2
>
>> If he's a pre-teen, then it's far too early - in my opinion - to worry
>> about this. What you are trying to convey is unimportant to him
>> compared to fitting in with his playmates.
>>
>> I agree that you should continue to correct him and guide him, but not
>> in a way that makes him feel that you think his friends are
>> unacceptably ignorant. Your criticisms of your son's friend's English
>> may be construed as criticism of the friends. Your son will just
>> become defensive of his friends.
>>
>> If your son is still a "toddler", I think you are *really* premature
>> in your concern. Excessive criticism in areas where the child is not
>> yet old enough to have a concept of the rules involved can lead to
>> insecurities that will stay with him for years.
>
>Thanks. I guess what concerns me is that I know children
>make mistakes (like irregular verbs) and "grow out of" them
>from exposure to correct language, but in this case he seems
>to be regularly exposed to what we think is incorrect, what
>we don't want him to learn.
>
He will learn it whether you want him to or not. The best you can hope
for, if it bothers you, is that he will confine his use of it to the
circles in which it is accepted, and use the "correct" versions around
you and other adults. The linguists' term for this is "code shifting";
everybody does it to some extent, and all children learn to do it
quite early in life, though not quite as early as this; it is a
routine part of language learning except for those who encounter the
language only in a formal academic setting. You don't really know a
lanuage until you acquire this ability to match your speech to your
audience.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
tony cooper
I really don't understand, after reading the above, how my son and my
daughter have managed to get to the point where they speak and write
very grammatical English. I never once discussed do-supports or
preterites with them. They somehow managed anyway.
>No non-linguist native speaker knows the "why" (if "why" means 'do-
>support operates with the infinitive not the preterite). No one,
>including linguists, knows "why" do-support operates with the
>infinitive not the preterite; that's simply the facts of the language.
I certainly can't argue with that. I'm a non-linguist native speaker
of English and don't know why do-supports operate with the infinitive
and not the preterite.
Brian M. Scott
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote in
<news:y6mxfx...@hpl.hp.com> in
sci.lang,alt.usage.english:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> writes:
>> On Oct 26, 8:41�pm, "Martha N." <mar...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
>>> Thanks. I guess what concerns me is that I know children
>>> make mistakes (like irregular verbs) and "grow out of"
>>> them from exposure to correct language, but in this
>>> case he seems to be regularly exposed to what we think
>>> is incorrect, what we don't want him to learn.-
>> That's exactly the point: "what you think is incorrect"
>> is _not_ incorrect in the contexts where he uses them.
> I wouldn't be too sure of that. At that age, if I
> (deadpan) mimicked my son's mistakes, I would often be
> met with a reaction that implied that he knew that I was
> saying something wrong. ("Dad, don't be silly!") At
> least, he recognized that it was something that "big
> people" shouldn't be saying. And if brought an error to
> his attention ("Bringed?") he would immediately see that
> it needed correcting and often supply the right form.
> But he would go on making the mistake.
Happens with pronunciation, too. One of my siblings
couldn't produce initial /f-/ when he was very young and
replaced it with /t-/, e.g., <funny> /'tVni/. But he
objected strenuously if any of the rest of us did it. (It
actually *was* rather funny, because he could produce an
extended voiceless labiodental, [f::::] in isolation; he
just couldn't follow it with anything. Try to get him to go
[f::::Vni], and he'd produce [f::::tVni].)
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:01335993-7ab5-4e80...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang,alt.usage.english:
[...]
> Though now that she _has_ cross-posted to sci.lang, maybe
> Brian Scott will explain how he ended up "talking like a
> book," since that's apparently the fate she wants for her
> son.
Largely inclination, I suspect. I also read voraciously
from an early age, had educated parents whose everyday
English was for the most part prescriptively correct,
preferred adult company, and outside of school by choice
spent little time with children my own age. The children
with whom I did spend some time were those with academic
inclinations.
[...]
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> > On Oct 26, 8:41 pm, "Martha N." <mar...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> Thanks. I guess what concerns me is that I know children
> >> make mistakes (like irregular verbs) and "grow out of" them
> >> from exposure to correct language, but in this case he seems
> >> to be regularly exposed to what we think is incorrect, what
> >> we don't want him to learn.-
>
> > That's exactly the point: "what you think is incorrect" is _not_
> > incorrect in the contexts where he uses them.
>
> I wouldn't be too sure of that. At that age, if I (deadpan) mimicked
> my son's mistakes, I would often be met with a reaction that implied
> that he knew that I was saying something wrong. ("Dad, don't be
> silly!") At least, he recognized that it was something that "big
> people" shouldn't be saying. And if brought an error to his attention
> ("Bringed?") he would immediately see that it needed correcting and
> often supply the right form. But he would go on making the mistake.
You seem to be mixing two things together: register differences, and
acquisition delays.
Peter T. Daniels
That is precisely the point. There is no conscious component to
language acquisition.
tony cooper
Yes, I know. I managed to work out your point on my own. Too bad
mine passed overhead.
Evan Kirshenbaum
No, I'm simply not assuming that what is being described is a register
difference. Certainly not at age four-and-a-half. You're stating
categorically that his phrasing "is _not_ incorrect in the contexts
where he uses them". [emphasis yours] I'm allowing that it may be.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |...as a mobile phone is analogous
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to a Q-Tip -- yeah, it's something
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |you stick in your ear, but there
|all resemblance ends.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Ross Howard
(650)857-7572
Nick
"My fiss".
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Ruud Harmsen
<b.s...@csuohio.edu>: in sci.lang:
>Happens with pronunciation, too. One of my siblings
>couldn't produce initial /f-/ when he was very young and
>replaced it with /t-/, e.g., <funny> /'tVni/. But he
>objected strenuously if any of the rest of us did it. (It
>actually *was* rather funny, because he could produce an
>extended voiceless labiodental, [f::::] in isolation; he
>just couldn't follow it with anything.
Same problem for me with clicks (except of course that clicks cannot
be extended).
Adam Funk
Those have to do with the facilities, not the person's own behaviour.
If Martha had expressed concern that her kid's friends chewed with
their mouths open and talked with food in their mouths, and she didn't
want him to pick up those bad habits, I doubt you would criticize her.
I see no reason why language use, as opposed to other kinds of social
interaction, has to be magically exempted from the imposition of
standards.
--
I put bomb in squirrel's briefcase and who gets blown up? Me!
Adam Funk
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> writes:
>
>> On 2009-10-26, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>> Children _understand_ "irregular" inflections before they can
>>> _produce_ them.
>>
>> ISTR reading that children understand lots of linguistic phenomena
>> before they can produce them, including phonemes that they can't
>> articulate yet. I came across examples (in a book by David Crystal, I
>> think, but I'm not certain) in which a small child mispronounces a
>> word, then gets annoyed when the parent repeats the mispronunciation
>> and says "No, I said ____!" with the same mispronunciation.
>
> "My fiss".
Yes, that's a good example (which I couldn't recall).
--
Civilization is a race between catastrophe and education.
[H G Wells]
James Hogg
Everyone's language follows some kind of standard. I think you mean that
other people's language should not be exempted from the imposition of
*your* standards.
--
James
António Marques
Cleanliness standards (and similars) have an objective reason to be.
Your 'linguistic standards' do not.
tony cooper
wrote:
The OP wasn't criticized. Most responses suggested that she be less
concerned about her son's poor grammar at this point in the child's
life, and that she should not be overly-critical of the boy.
I'm still hung up on this "toddler" thing. Allowances should be made
for the table manners of a toddler if we are using my definition of
"toddler" as being at the just-walking stage. "Allowances" doesn't
mean anything goes, but the child who is constantly corrected will
start to constantly rebel.
António Marques
And what word would that be?
Evan Kirshenbaum
I would think that table manners are about as arbitrary (and variable)
as linguistic standards. What did you have in mind?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Usenet is like Tetris for people
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |who still remember how to read.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
António Marques
> António Marques<m....@sapo.pt> writes:
>
>> Adam Funk wrote:
>>> On 2009-10-27, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 26, 7:48 pm, Adam Funk<a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> What if the OP had said she wanted her son to have good table
>>>>> manners even if his peers don't? Would that be evil
>>>>> prescription?
>>>>
>>>> It would be inappropriate to bring candelabra, table linens, and
>>>> fingerbowls to a picnic or a barbecue.
>>>
>>> Those have to do with the facilities, not the person's own
>>> behaviour. If Martha had expressed concern that her kid's friends
>>> chewed with their mouths open and talked with food in their mouths,
>>> and she didn't want him to pick up those bad habits, I doubt you
>>> would criticize her.
>>>
>>> I see no reason why language use, as opposed to other kinds of
>>> social interaction, has to be magically exempted from the
>>> imposition of standards.
>>
>> Cleanliness standards (and similars) have an objective reason to
>> be. Your 'linguistic standards' do not.
>
> I would think that table manners are about as arbitrary (and variable)
> as linguistic standards. What did you have in mind?
Isn't '[c]leanliness' in response to 'chewed with their mouths open and
talked with food in their mouths' explicit enough?
As for really arbitrary standards, the assumption is that if someone
doesn't use them it's because of ignorance. That, not the non-use
itself, is what irks people.
Evan Kirshenbaum
They appeared to be connected, but it wasn't clear why. I don't see
any cleanliness issues involved with chewing with an open mouth or
talking with food in your mouth, and I would be very surprised if such
things were universally considered to be bad manners.
> As for really arbitrary standards, the assumption is that if someone
> doesn't use them it's because of ignorance. That, not the non-use
> itself, is what irks people.
Either non-use or not considering the standard important enough to
adhere to.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |He seems to be perceptive and
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |effective because he states the
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |obvious to people that don't seem
|to see the obvious.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |
(650)857-7572 | Tony Cooper
John Kane
It was a political decision back in the 1630's when the pretrites were
taking over parliament.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
António Marques
Anything that heightens the chances of spitting bits of chewed food
mixed with your own saliva into other people is a cleanliness issue. Of
course, you might object that cleanliness obeys different standards in
different environments, but the issue here is that they are the animus
behind most 'table manners'. Whereas the 'linguistic standards' being
discussed have nothing behind them but themselves.
>> As for really arbitrary standards, the assumption is that if someone
>> doesn't use them it's because of ignorance. That, not the non-use
>> itself, is what irks people.
>
> Either non-use or not considering the standard important enough to
> adhere to.
I suppose the latter is inconceivable to most people, except for some
exceptions.
António Marques
> On Oct 26, 10:30 pm, tony cooper<tony_cooper...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:53:10 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> 'do- support operates with the infinitive not the preterite). No
>>> one, including linguists, knows "why" do-support operates with
>>> the infinitive not the preterite; that's simply the facts of the
>>> language.
>>
>> I certainly can't argue with that. I'm a non-linguist native
>> speaker of English and don't know why do-supports operate with the
>> infinitive and not the preterite.
>
> It was a political decision back in the 1630's when the pretrites
> were taking over parliament.
>
> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
I still don't understand how from
"When did your brother spot you?"
"When did your brother hit you?"
one is supposed to get that the preterite of 'hit' is not '*hitted'.
But then I still don't understand either how Milo could buy eggs in
Malta for seven cents apiece and sell them at a profit in Pianosa for
five cents.
erilar
I've also been accused of talking like a book 8-) I also have always
read voraciously and had educated parents. I did have some friends my
age, but sometimes we had next to no neighbors at all, so--more reading
8-) When I was young, however, I never heard the kind of language I've
been hearing from children and teenagers in recent years ANYwhere.
--
Erilar, biblioholic
bib-li-o-hol-ism [<Gr biblion] n. [BIBLIO + HOLISM] books, of books:
habitual longing to purchase, read, store, admire, and consume books in excess.
Alan Munn
Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> António Marques <m....@sapo.pt> writes:
>
> > As for really arbitrary standards, the assumption is that if someone
> > doesn't use them it's because of ignorance. That, not the non-use
> > itself, is what irks people.
>
> Either non-use or not considering the standard important enough to
> adhere to.
Actually what matters is proportion or use/non-use. Very few
sociolinguistic variables are truly on or off. For most of us (native
speakers) here, I would suspect that we use both "me and John" and "John
and I" depending on context of use, and even within those contexts are
use of one or the other is not 100%. It's only when one's percentage
goes above or below the threshold for the situation relative to one's
social class that people start to notice. Of course the common
perception is that it's an either or situation (I'm not attributing this
view to you, Evan.)
Alan
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>> António Marques<m....@sapo.pt> writes:
>>
>>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>>> I would think that table manners are about as arbitrary (and
>>>> variable) as linguistic standards. What did you have in mind?
>>>
>>> Isn't '[c]leanliness' in response to 'chewed with their mouths open
>>> and talked with food in their mouths' explicit enough?
>>
>> They appeared to be connected, but it wasn't clear why. I don't see
>> any cleanliness issues involved with chewing with an open mouth or
>> talking with food in your mouth, and I would be very surprised if such
>> things were universally considered to be bad manners.
>
> Anything that heightens the chances of spitting bits of chewed food
> mixed with your own saliva into other people is a cleanliness
> issue.
But an exceedingly minor one. Do you have any evidence that this, as
opposed to, say, disgust at the sight of chewed food, is the primary
reason for this particular bit of manners? My own guess is that
cleanliness had about as much to do with that particular prohibition
as trichinosis did with the reason that Jews were prohibited from
eating pork. It's a nice just so story, but nothing more.
> Of course, you might object that cleanliness obeys different
> standards in different environments, but the issue here is that they
> are the animus behind most 'table manners'.
Do you really want to go with that "most"? Don't eat with your
fingers (except for certain foods, which vary by place and for
everything in certain places)? Elbows off the table? Fork in your
right hand, switching to left to cut (except where you keep it in your
left hand)? Head uncovered (except when/where it must be covered)?
Don't start eating until everybody (or certain people) is ready?
Don't mush your food together on the plate (except for certain
things)? Keep your napkin in your lap (or tucked into your collar or
folded next to your plate)? Use the proper fork for the proper
course? Don't just tear off a hunk of bread (or do, depending on the
circumstances)? Ask permission before leaving the table? Excuse
yourself after burping (except where you don't)? Etc.
> Whereas the 'linguistic standards' being discussed have nothing
> behind them but themselves.
They have exactly the same things behind them. Conformity to social
norms, indicating in-group status. And conformity to others'
expectations, leading to less misunderstanding.
>>> As for really arbitrary standards, the assumption is that if
>>> someone doesn't use them it's because of ignorance. That, not the
>>> non-use itself, is what irks people.
>>
>> Either non-use or not considering the standard important enough to
>> adhere to.
>
> I suppose the latter is inconceivable to most people, except for
> some exceptions.
Right. Few people consciously choose to rebel against (or simply
ignore) parental or societal expectations. I'd ask if you had
children (especially teenagers), but a more pertinent question is
whether you've actually *been* a teenager.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |It does me no injury for my neighbor
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to say there are twenty gods, or no
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |God.
| Thomas Jefferson
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
António Marques
>>>
>>>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>>>> I would think that table manners are about as arbitrary (and
>>>>> variable) as linguistic standards. What did you have in
>>>>> mind?
>>>>
>>>> Isn't '[c]leanliness' in response to 'chewed with their mouths
>>>> open and talked with food in their mouths' explicit enough?
>>>
>>> They appeared to be connected, but it wasn't clear why. I don't
>>> see any cleanliness issues involved with chewing with an open
>>> mouth or talking with food in your mouth, and I would be very
>>> surprised if such things were universally considered to be bad
>>> manners.
>>
>> Anything that heightens the chances of spitting bits of chewed
>> food mixed with your own saliva into other people is a cleanliness
>> issue.
>
> But an exceedingly minor one. Do you have any evidence that this,
> as opposed to, say, disgust at the sight of chewed food, is the
> primary reason for this particular bit of manners?
And why could such disgust be?
> My own guess is that cleanliness had about as much to do with that
> particular prohibition as trichinosis did with the reason that Jews
> were prohibited from eating pork. It's a nice just so story, but
> nothing more.
Yes, it's your own guess and nothing more.
>> Of course, you might object that cleanliness obeys different
>> standards in different environments, but the issue here is that
>> they are the animus behind most 'table manners'.
>
> Do you really want to go with that "most"?
I'll stand by it, but no, I'm not particularly interested in
'discussing' anything whatsover with people who'll go blathering on and
on for the sake of it.
> Don't eat with your fingers (except for certain foods, which vary by
> place and for everything in certain places)?
??? Keep your fingers clean. If it's too hard or they don't get that
dirty, it's relaxed.
> Elbows off the table?
Of course. We don't know where they've been.
> Fork in your right hand, switching to left to cut (except where you
> keep it in your left hand)?
No forks on the right hand here. This one has to do with practicality. I
didn't say 'all'.
> Head uncovered (except when/where it must be covered)?
Lest the covering falls on your plate or someone else's?
> Don't start eating until everybody (or certain people) is ready?
Does that need an exaplanation?
> Don't mush your food together on the plate (except for certain
> things)?
I didn't say 'all'.
> Keep your napkin in your lap (or tucked into your collar or folded
> next to your plate)?
Where else, on the floor? Next to your neighbour's, so that they get
confused?
> Use the proper fork for the proper course?
There's a reason they call it 'proper'.
> Don't just tear off a hunk of bread (or do, depending on the
> circumstances)?
Ahh, the circumstances. What could those mean?
> Ask permission before leaving the table?
Does that need an exaplanation?
> Excuse yourself after burping (except where you don't)?
Those tricky circumstances again...
> Etc.
This one is hard to beat, but judging by the sample you've offered, the
odds are that they, too, are not arbitrary.
I know it must be very hard on you, but sometimes things just don't work
the way you expect. Sometimes you go to bed thinking you'd like to have
risotto the next day, and the next day you don't feel like having
anything. Logic will be of no avail to you when dealing with your
appetite, and likewise the fact that you'd like and think it logical
that certain behaviours are expected over others always for the same
reasons, reasons which you derive - again - using your logic, because
it's all you care to have, doesn't command reality.
You're like a marxist trying to explain everything in terms of class
struggle. However it makes you look, it tells the world more about you
than it tells you [correctly] about the world.
>> Whereas the 'linguistic standards' being discussed have nothing
>> behind them but themselves.
>
> They have exactly the same things behind them. Conformity to social
> norms, indicating in-group status. And conformity to others'
> expectations, leading to less misunderstanding.
Nonsense:
- 'conformity to social norms' is circular (unobservantly so)
- this discussion is about *one* standard everyone is supposed to follow
- not one of the above is without something behind it, that's what makes
them reasonable to follow, and it's not anyone else's fault that you
lack the sensibility and have to resort to your inexpensive "they're
just-so stories" attitude
- it should be easy to point out convincing "just-so" justifications for
said 'linguistic standards', but you're at a loss to do it, can't admit
that and resort to armchair psychology
>>>> As for really arbitrary standards, the assumption is that if
>>>> someone doesn't use them it's because of ignorance. That, not
>>>> the non-use itself, is what irks people.
>>>
>>> Either non-use or not considering the standard important enough
>>> to adhere to.
>>
>> I suppose the latter is inconceivable to most people, except for
>> some exceptions.
>
> Right. Few people consciously choose to rebel against (or simply
> ignore) parental or societal expectations. I'd ask if you had
> children (especially teenagers), but a more pertinent question is
> whether you've actually *been* a teenager.
It may come as a surprise to you, but not all teenagers are punks. If
you observe hard, maybe the difference will come to you. But what does
that matter to someone for whom life is an endless string of pointless
sophistry? Heck, life at HP must be dry.
Robin Bignall
wrote:
>On 27 Oct 2009 00:41:11 -0000, "Martha N." <mar...@NOSPAM.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>tony cooper wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:33:42 , "Martha N."
>>> <mar...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> >(Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's
>>> >accent last summer.)
>>> >
>>> >He has now picked up the local accent from his peers. But
>>> >unfortunately he's also picked up their bad grammar and says
>>> >things like "Me and Billy did this" -- how can I get him to
>>> >say "Billy and I did this" instead?
>>> >
>>> >My husband and I both set a good example, and I've tried
>>> >"recasting" his sentences, but his peers' bad example seems
>>> >to keep overriding ours.
>>> >
>>> >Any advice?
>>>
>>> What is your son's age?
>>
>>4 & 1/2
>>
>>> If he's a pre-teen, then it's far too early - in my opinion - to worry
>>> about this. What you are trying to convey is unimportant to him
>>> compared to fitting in with his playmates.
>>>
>>> I agree that you should continue to correct him and guide him, but not
>>> in a way that makes him feel that you think his friends are
>>> unacceptably ignorant. Your criticisms of your son's friend's English
>>> may be construed as criticism of the friends. Your son will just
>>> become defensive of his friends.
>>>
>>> If your son is still a "toddler", I think you are *really* premature
>>> in your concern. Excessive criticism in areas where the child is not
>>> yet old enough to have a concept of the rules involved can lead to
>>> insecurities that will stay with him for years.
>>
>>Thanks. I guess what concerns me is that I know children
>>make mistakes (like irregular verbs) and "grow out of" them
>>from exposure to correct language, but in this case he seems
>>to be regularly exposed to what we think is incorrect, what
>>we don't want him to learn.
>>
>He will learn it whether you want him to or not. The best you can hope
>for, if it bothers you, is that he will confine his use of it to the
>circles in which it is accepted, and use the "correct" versions around
>you and other adults. The linguists' term for this is "code shifting";
>everybody does it to some extent, and all children learn to do it
>quite early in life, though not quite as early as this; it is a
>routine part of language learning except for those who encounter the
>language only in a formal academic setting. You don't really know a
>lanuage until you acquire this ability to match your speech to your
>audience.
I grew up in a very working class area and quickly learned, once I had
started school, to speak like those around me or get picked on by the
bullies (and there are five-year-old bullies). This horrified my
parents, who were not educated people, but who had had the "Three Rs"
firmly established in their schools in the early years of last
century. Code shifting between school and home quickly became
automatic.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Peter T. Daniels
> I still don't understand how from
>
> "When did your brother spot you?"
> "When did your brother hit you?"
>
> one is supposed to get that the preterite of 'hit' is not '*hitted'.
>
> But then I still don't understand either how Milo could buy eggs in
> Malta for seven cents apiece and sell them at a profit in Pianosa for
> five cents.-
Currency manipulation? (No idea what you're talking about.)
Alan Munn
<d365987f-8612-4c5d...@y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
It's from Catch 22. As with almost everything, "there's a link for
that".
http://everything2.com/title/Milo%2520Minderbinder
Alan
Adam Funk
> The OP wasn't criticized. Most responses suggested that she be less
> concerned about her son's poor grammar at this point in the child's
> life, and that she should not be overly-critical of the boy.
>
> I'm still hung up on this "toddler" thing. Allowances should be made
> for the table manners of a toddler if we are using my definition of
> "toddler" as being at the just-walking stage. "Allowances" doesn't
> mean anything goes, but the child who is constantly corrected will
> start to constantly rebel.
I agree. I was just opposing that bit of linguistic dogma ---
especially from someone who does claims to hate prescription but does
correct other people for misusing "beg the question".
--
I don't know what they have to say
It makes no difference anyway;
Whatever it is, I'm against it! [Prof. Wagstaff]
Adam Funk
"fist" --- ISTR that /s/ for /st/ at the end of a word is a common
child's error in English.
--
Bob just used 'canonical' in the canonical way. [Guy Steele]
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>> António Marques<m....@sapo.pt> writes:
>>
>>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>>> António Marques<m....@sapo.pt> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>>>>> I would think that table manners are about as arbitrary (and
>>>>>> variable) as linguistic standards. What did you have in
>>>>>> mind?
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't '[c]leanliness' in response to 'chewed with their mouths
>>>>> open and talked with food in their mouths' explicit enough?
>>>>
>>>> They appeared to be connected, but it wasn't clear why. I don't
>>>> see any cleanliness issues involved with chewing with an open
>>>> mouth or talking with food in your mouth, and I would be very
>>>> surprised if such things were universally considered to be bad
>>>> manners.
>>>
>>> Anything that heightens the chances of spitting bits of chewed
>>> food mixed with your own saliva into other people is a cleanliness
>>> issue.
>>
>> But an exceedingly minor one. Do you have any evidence that this,
>> as opposed to, say, disgust at the sight of chewed food, is the
>> primary reason for this particular bit of manners?
>
> And why could such disgust be?
Probably due to its visual similarity to decomposing meat. Either
that or (or possibly and) because you are most likely to see chewed
food when it caused the person chewing it to gag or vomit, where
triggering a similar response in you is likely to be beneficial when
you are eating from the same source. See William Miller's _The
Anatomy of Disgust_ for a much better treatment about what factors
apparently led to the formation of disgust reactions.
>> My own guess is that cleanliness had about as much to do with that
>> particular prohibition as trichinosis did with the reason that Jews
>> were prohibited from eating pork. It's a nice just so story, but
>> nothing more.
>
> Yes, it's your own guess and nothing more.
Whereas your copious support is where exactly?
>>> Of course, you might object that cleanliness obeys different
>>> standards in different environments, but the issue here is that
>>> they are the animus behind most 'table manners'.
>>
>> Do you really want to go with that "most"?
>
> I'll stand by it, but no, I'm not particularly interested in
> 'discussing' anything whatsover with people who'll go blathering on
> and on for the sake of it.
>
>> Don't eat with your fingers (except for certain foods, which vary by
>> place and for everything in certain places)?
>
> ??? Keep your fingers clean. If it's too hard or they don't get that
> dirty, it's relaxed.
It would be interesting to watch you try to apply that across cultures
(including those that eat almost everything with their hands or,
often, with only one hand) and across foods within American (or some
other) culture. Probably the quintessential finger-food in the US is
fried chicken, which is not hard to eat with utensils and is so likely
to make the fingers greasy that when good it's described as
"finger-lickin' good".
>> Elbows off the table?
>
> Of course. We don't know where they've been.
Forearms and wrists, of course, are never dirty. And places where
nobody would think of criticizing elbows on the table are simply
unconcerned about cleanliness? Face it, this one is purely an
arbitrary convention, mostly there to back up the goal of having
people sit up straight in their seats rather than slouching or
leaning. (Of course, in many cultures, if you were wealthy enough,
proper table manners were to eat lying on your side. Sitting up was
for the poor.)
>> Fork in your right hand, switching to left to cut (except where you
>> keep it in your left hand)?
>
> No forks on the right hand here. This one has to do with
> practicality. I didn't say 'all'.
It actually has to do with table manners at the time forks were
introduced into the various cultures (see Petroski, _The Evolution of
Useful Things_). In Europe, it replaced a knife; in America, a
spoon. It's about as arbitrary a bit of cultural transmission as
you're going to find.
>> Head uncovered (except when/where it must be covered)?
>
> Lest the covering falls on your plate or someone else's?
The mandatory ones are typically far more precariously balanced than
the prohibited ones (including hoods).
>> Don't start eating until everybody (or certain people) is ready?
>
> Does that need an exaplanation?
Can you really not see that it does? It's far from universal. But my
question was whether this fell under your "most table manners" that
are the way they are because of concerns with cleanliness.
>> Don't mush your food together on the plate (except for certain
>> things)?
>
> I didn't say 'all'.
But you also didn't say which. Hence my questions.
>> Keep your napkin in your lap (or tucked into your collar or folded
>> next to your plate)?
>
> Where else, on the floor? Next to your neighbour's, so that they get
> confused?
Why does there have to be a rule? The right way in some places
constitutes bad manners in others.
>> Use the proper fork for the proper course?
>
> There's a reason they call it 'proper'.
Is there a reason why it would be bad manners to not follow along?
>> Don't just tear off a hunk of bread (or do, depending on the
>> circumstances)?
>
> Ahh, the circumstances. What could those mean?
There's a reason they call it "breaking bread". In Jewish households
for Shabbat and holiday dinners, at least, when serving challah, the
proper thing to do is to rip off a piece for each person and hand it
to them. Slicing it would be bad manners.
>> Ask permission before leaving the table?
>
> Does that need an exaplanation?
Of course. Any rule needs explanation. Especially when it's not
invariant.
>> Excuse yourself after burping (except where you don't)?
>
> Those tricky circumstances again...
I was thinking more in terms of those places in which burping is
considered to be good manners and is interpreted as a compliment to
the one who prepared the food.
>> Etc.
>
> This one is hard to beat, but judging by the sample you've offered, the
> odds are that they, too, are not arbitrary.
>
> I know it must be very hard on you, but sometimes things just don't
> work the way you expect. Sometimes you go to bed thinking you'd like
> to have risotto the next day, and the next day you don't feel like
> having anything. Logic will be of no avail to you when dealing with
> your appetite, and likewise the fact that you'd like and think it
> logical that certain behaviours are expected over others always for
> the same reasons, reasons which you derive - again - using your
> logic, because it's all you care to have, doesn't command reality.
>
> You're like a marxist trying to explain everything in terms of class
> struggle. However it makes you look, it tells the world more about you
> than it tells you [correctly] about the world.
Did we just switch roles here? You're the one who said that most
table manners can be explained by a single concern. I was the one
arguing that different bits arose in different places at different
times for different reasons, but that the main reason different rules
apply in different cultures is today that those rules (or similar
ones) applied in those cultures a generation ago. And many of them
have been rationalized after the fact, but the rationalizations often
have little to do with the reason that they arose or are worthwhile.
>>> Whereas the 'linguistic standards' being discussed have nothing
>>> behind them but themselves.
>>
>> They have exactly the same things behind them. Conformity to social
>> norms, indicating in-group status. And conformity to others'
>> expectations, leading to less misunderstanding.
>
> Nonsense:
>
> - 'conformity to social norms' is circular (unobservantly so)
Feel free to note that it's just because I'm an uneducated dolt, but
I can't find any reasonable reading of that statement.
> - this discussion is about *one* standard everyone is supposed to
> follow
I haven't been participating in any such discussion.
> - not one of the above is without something behind it, that's what
> makes them reasonable to follow, and it's not anyone else's fault
> that you lack the sensibility and have to resort to your inexpensive
> "they're just-so stories" attitude
You would prefer "rationalizations"? Or perhaps you'd like to provide
a shred of evidence.
> - it should be easy to point out convincing "just-so" justifications
> for said 'linguistic standards', but you're at a loss to do it,
> can't admit that and resort to armchair psychology
Huh? There are tons of just-so justifications for linguistic
standards, they get trotted out here in AUE all the time (typically by
newcomers), and they have just as much validity. Mostly they boil
down to "people would have trouble communicating if we didn't do it
the way we did it when (and where) I was growing up".
>>>>> As for really arbitrary standards, the assumption is that if
>>>>> someone doesn't use them it's because of ignorance. That, not
>>>>> the non-use itself, is what irks people.
>>>>
>>>> Either non-use or not considering the standard important enough
>>>> to adhere to.
>>>
>>> I suppose the latter is inconceivable to most people, except for
>>> some exceptions.
>>
>> Right. Few people consciously choose to rebel against (or simply
>> ignore) parental or societal expectations. I'd ask if you had
>> children (especially teenagers), but a more pertinent question is
>> whether you've actually *been* a teenager.
>
> It may come as a surprise to you, but not all teenagers are
> punks.
Not at all. It also doesn't come as a surprise to me that very few
teenagers are little angels for whom it is "inconceivable" to not
follow every single standard they learn from their parents or their
society. Perhaps there's a middle ground. One in which nearly all
push against some rules at some point. I don't think that makes them
"punks". I think it makes them human.
> If you observe hard, maybe the difference will come to you. But what
> does that matter to someone for whom life is an endless string of
> pointless sophistry? Heck, life at HP must be dry.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |There is no such thing as bad data,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |only data from bad homes.
Evan Kirshenbaum
You could probably figure out how to find out. It's been a while
since I read the book, but Googling refreshed my memory on the
particulars. There are two answers. The first answer is that he
bought the eggs from himself, and eggs cost sellers in Malta 4.25
cents, so he made three quarters of a cent per egg. The second answer
is that he actually bought the eggs for one cent apiece in Sicily and
transported them to Malta, where he sold them to himself for seven
cents, so he mad four cents an egg (less transport costs).
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If I am ever forced to make a
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |choice between learning and using
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |win32, or leaving the computer
|industry, let me just say it was
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |nice knowing all of you. :-)
(650)857-7572 | Randal Schwartz
Peter T. Daniels
> In article
> <d365987f-8612-4c5d-acae-dea930df8...@y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 27, 3:43 pm, António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>
> > > I still don't understand how from
>
> > > "When did your brother spot you?"
> > > "When did your brother hit you?"
>
> > > one is supposed to get that the preterite of 'hit' is not '*hitted'.
>
> > > But then I still don't understand either how Milo could buy eggs in
> > > Malta for seven cents apiece and sell them at a profit in Pianosa for
> > > five cents.-
>
> > Currency manipulation? (No idea what you're talking about.)
>
> It's from Catch 22. As with almost everything, "there's a link for
> that".
>
> http://everything2.com/title/Milo%2520Minderbinder
I read it in high school (anyway, before the movie was made) and
remember things like Major Major and the original catch-22.
Roland Hutchinson
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> On Oct 27, 3:43 pm, António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>>
>>> I still don't understand how from
>>>
>>> "When did your brother spot you?"
>>> "When did your brother hit you?"
>>>
>>> one is supposed to get that the preterite of 'hit' is not '*hitted'.
>>>
>>> But then I still don't understand either how Milo could buy eggs in
>>> Malta for seven cents apiece and sell them at a profit in Pianosa for
>>> five cents.-
>>
>> Currency manipulation? (No idea what you're talking about.)
>
> You could probably figure out how to find out. It's been a while since
> I read the book, but Googling refreshed my memory on the particulars.
> There are two answers. The first answer is that he bought the eggs from
> himself, and eggs cost sellers in Malta 4.25 cents, so he made three
> quarters of a cent per egg. The second answer is that he actually
> bought the eggs for one cent apiece in Sicily and transported them to
> Malta, where he sold them to himself for seven cents, so he mad four
> cents an egg (less transport costs).
Of course he didn't make the profit. The syndicate made the profit. And
everybody had a share.
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
Jerry Friedman
> António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> writes:
[reasons for table manners]
> >> Head uncovered (except when/where it must be covered)?
>
> > Lest the covering falls on your plate or someone else's?
>
> The mandatory ones are typically far more precariously balanced than
> the prohibited ones (including hoods).
...
> >> Keep your napkin in your lap (or tucked into your collar or folded
> >> next to your plate)?
>
> > Where else, on the floor? Next to your neighbour's, so that they get
> > confused?
...
Reminds me of a seder presided over by my maternal grandfather. He
couldn't find a yarmulka, so he put a napkin on his head. It kept
sliding off--but not into anyone else's food, as far as I remember.
--
Jerry Friedman
tony cooper
wrote:
>But then I still don't understand either how Milo could buy eggs in
>Malta for seven cents apiece and sell them at a profit in Pianosa for
>five cents.
There must be a Catch to it.
tony cooper
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
Lt Milo Minderbinder, of course.
tony cooper
<jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Reminds me of a seder presided over by my maternal grandfather. He
>couldn't find a yarmulka, so he put a napkin on his head. It kept
>sliding off--but not into anyone else's food, as far as I remember.
There was a time when Catholic women were expected to cover their
heads when attending Mass. It was not uncommon to see a woman who had
forgotten her hat or scarf with a Kleenex atop her head. It was a
particularly amusing sight when beehive hairdos were popular.
Bertel Lund Hansen
> - it should be easy to point out convincing "just-so" justifications for
> said 'linguistic standards', but you're at a loss to do it, can't admit
> that and resort to armchair psychology
It seems you haven't grasped Evan Kirshenbaum's point: that
eating habits and other habits vary quite a lot around the world.
You may have what you would call sensible reasons for doing
things in a certain way, but other people do them differently for
equally sensible reasons.
Likewise language varies around the world and within each
country, each town and even within smaller units. Children (and
adults) have to learn to navigate in different social circles and
to discern what is appropriate in a given context and what is
not. This ability is crucial.
> It may come as a surprise to you, but not all teenagers are punks. If
> you observe hard, maybe the difference will come to you. But what does
> that matter to someone for whom life is an endless string of pointless
> sophistry? Heck, life at HP must be dry.
Not everyone masters the skill.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Bertel Lund Hansen
> I'm still hung up on this "toddler" thing. Allowances should be made
> for the table manners of a toddler if we are using my definition of
> "toddler" as being at the just-walking stage. "Allowances" doesn't
> mean anything goes, but the child who is constantly corrected will
> start to constantly rebel.
Or worse: stop believing in himself.
Corrections need not be explicit by the way. A slight,
unconscious facial gesture can do the trick.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Armond Perretta
>
> But then I still don't understand either how Milo could buy eggs in
> Malta for seven cents apiece and sell them at a profit in Pianosa for
> five cents.
Simple. He made it up in volume.
Reread the above with emphasis on "he made it up."
--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://home.comcast.net/~kerrydeare
António Marques
> António Marques skrev:
>
>> - it should be easy to point out convincing "just-so" justifications for
>> said 'linguistic standards', but you're at a loss to do it, can't admit
>> that and resort to armchair psychology
>
> It seems you haven't grasped Evan Kirshenbaum's point: that
Rather, it seems both of you didn't grasp that that is irrelevant to the
discussion at hand, or if anything comes to support what I said:
1. I made the point that there needn't be a single solution to an
everyday problem. That there are different solutions, even opposite
ones, doesn't mean only one can be logical and/or sensible.
2. This discussion isn't about mastering different registers. It's about
acquisition of a specific register.
3. The specific point being argued is that while there are reasons (I'd
even say post-hoc or not) for following specific social standards, the
following of the 'linguistic standards' that were being mentioned is
externally unjustifiable; the value of such 'standards' is in
themselves, not in anything else, real or imagined - there is simply no
reason for 'X and I' over 'Me and X' other than "we want it that way" -,
while the fact remains that there is no dearth of reasons for most
social standards, whether you like it or you don't [and then proceed to
say that all those reasons are bogus as if it mattered one bit].
4. It follows that no matter how similar social standards and those
'linguistic standards' may be, they're not the same. This exceedingly
arrogant attitude of mixing up everything without the least regard for
distinctions which are important for who actually deals with the matters
is something I just can't be bothered to tolerate anymore.
Now, if people were actually interested in discussing matters rather
than looking smart before an impressionable audience, the world would be
a better place. But some seem never to have left kindergarten.
António Marques
> On 2009-10-27, tony cooper wrote:
>
>> The OP wasn't criticized. Most responses suggested that she be less
>> concerned about her son's poor grammar at this point in the child's
>> life, and that she should not be overly-critical of the boy.
>>
>> I'm still hung up on this "toddler" thing. Allowances should be made
>> for the table manners of a toddler if we are using my definition of
>> "toddler" as being at the just-walking stage. "Allowances" doesn't
>> mean anything goes, but the child who is constantly corrected will
>> start to constantly rebel.
>
> I agree. I was just opposing that bit of linguistic dogma ---
> especially from someone who does claims to hate prescription but does
> correct other people for misusing "beg the question".
Again, insistence on correct use of terminology is not 'prescription' in
the sense that is 'hated'.
António Marques
> On 2009-10-27, António Marques wrote:
>
>> Adam Funk wrote:
>>> On 2009-10-27, Nick wrote:
>>>
>>>> Adam Funk<a24...@ducksburg.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2009-10-26, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Children _understand_ "irregular" inflections before they can
>>>>>> _produce_ them.
>>>>>
>>>>> ISTR reading that children understand lots of linguistic phenomena
>>>>> before they can produce them, including phonemes that they can't
>>>>> articulate yet. I came across examples (in a book by David Crystal, I
>>>>> think, but I'm not certain) in which a small child mispronounces a
>>>>> word, then gets annoyed when the parent repeats the mispronunciation
>>>>> and says "No, I said ____!" with the same mispronunciation.
>>>>
>>>> "My fiss".
>>>
>>> Yes, that's a good example (which I couldn't recall).
>>
>> And what word would that be?
>
> "fist" --- ISTR that /s/ for /st/ at the end of a word is a common
> child's error in English.
Could that be an indication that such -st is really a single phoneme?
Peter T. Daniels
Or that dropping a final stop isn't just a French bizarrerie? It's
normal in AAVE.
There's also the little problem of the "Sonority Hierarchy," which has
to throw up its hands in despair when it comes to [s].
Peter T. Daniels
The very "unconsciousness" of it is key.
Bertel Lund Hansen
> > Or worse: stop believing in himself.
> > Corrections need not be explicit by the way. A slight,
> > unconscious facial gesture can do the trick.
> The very "unconsciousness" of it is key.
Quite. That is why I previously wrote that parents must learn to
respect the choices of their children, especially when they
differ from their own.
(The censorship deleted a joke with children of their choice)
--
Bertel, Denmark